Www.ccbiblestudy.net
《Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges – Luke (Vol. 1)》(A Compilation)
General Introduction
The general design of the Commentary, has been to connect more closely the study of the Classics with the reading of the New Testament. To recognise this connection and to draw it closer is the first task of the Christian scholar. The best thoughts as well as the words of Hellenic culture have a place, not of sufferance, but of right in the Christian system. This consideration will equally deepen the interest in the Greek and Latin Classics, and in the study of the New Testament. But the Greek Testament may become the centre towards which all lines of learning and research converge. Art, or the expressed thought of great painters, often the highest intellects of their day, once the great popular interpreters of Scripture, has bequeathed lessons which ought not to be neglected. Every advance in science, in philology, in grammar, in historical research, and every new phase of thought, throws its own light on the words of Christ. In this way, each successive age has a fresh contribution to bring to the interpretation of Scripture.
Another endeavour has been to bring in the aid of Modern Greek (which is in reality often very ancient Greek), in illustration of New Testament words and idioms. In this subject many suggestions have come from Geldart's Modern Greek Language; and among other works consulted have been: Clyde's Romaic and Modern Greek, Vincent and Bourne's Modern Greek, the Modern Greek grammars of J. Donaldson and Corfe and the Γραμματικὴ τῆς Ἀγγλικῆς γλώσσης ὑπὸ Γεωργίου Λαμπισῆ.
The editor wished also to call attention to the form in which St Matthew has preserved our Lord's discourses. And here Bishop Jebb's Sacred Literature has been invaluable. His conclusions may not in every instance be accepted, but the line of investigation which he followed is very fruitful in interesting and profitable results. Of this more is said infra, Introd. ch. v. 2.
The works principally consulted have been: Bruder's Concordance of the N.T. and Trommius' of the LXX Schleusner's Lexicon, Grimm's edition of Wilkii Clavis, the indices of Wyttenbach to Plutarch and of Schweighäuser to Polybius, E. A. Sophocles' Greek Lexicon (Roma and Byzantine period); Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. (the references are to the second edition); Hammond's Textual Criticism applied to the N.T.; Dr Moulton's edition of Winer's Grammar (1870); Clyde's Greek Syntax, Goodwin's Greek Moods and Tenses; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Bp Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the N.T.; Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ; Schöttgen's Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ, and various modern books of travel, to which references are given in the notes.
Introduction
Note: The original text contained a number of Excursuses at the end of Luke. The verse comments occasionally reference the Excursuses. The Excursuses are presented at the end of the Book comments for Luke (scroll do the bottom of this window).
PREFACE
BY THE GENERAL EDITOR
THE General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold himself responsible either for the interpretation of particular passages which the Editors of the several Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New Testament more especially questions arise of the deepest theological import, on which the ablest and most conscientious interpreters have differed and always will differ. His aim has been in all such cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided. He has contented himself chiefly with a careful revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like.
Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series.
ON THE GREEK TEXT
IN undertaking an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with English notes for the use of Schools, the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use[1]. To have done this would have been to set aside all the materials that have since been accumulated towards the formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results of textual criticism in its application to MSS., Versions and Fathers. It was felt that a text more in accordance with the present state of our knowledge was desirable. On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one of the more recent critical texts, and they were not disposed to make themselves responsible for the preparation of an entirely new and independent text: at the same time it would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the judgment of each individual contributor to frame his own text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uniformity or consistency. They believed however that a good text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf and Tregelles, as a basis. The same principle of consent could be applied to places where the two critical editions were at variance, by allowing a determining voice to the text of Stephens where it agreed with either of their readings, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where the text of Stephens differed from both. In this manner readings peculiar to one or other of the two editions would be passed over as not being supported by sufficient critical consent; while readings having the double authority would be treated as possessing an adequate title to confidence.
A few words will suffice to explain the manner in which this design has been carried out.
In the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, wherever the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles agree, their joint readings are followed without any deviation. Where they differ from each other, but neither of them agrees with the text of Stephens as printed in Dr Scrivener’s edition, the consensus of Lachmann with either is taken in preference to the text of Stephens. In all other cases the text of Stephens as represented in Dr Scrivener’s edition has been followed.
In the Gospels, a single modification of this plan has been rendered necessary by the importance of the Sinai MS. (א), which was discovered too late to be used by Tregelles except in the last chapter of St John’s Gospel and in the following books. Accordingly, if a reading which Tregelles has put in his margin agrees with א, it is considered as of the same authority as a reading which he has adopted in his text; and if any words which Tregelles has bracketed are omitted by א, these words are here dealt with as if rejected from his text.
In order to secure uniformity, the spelling and the accentuation of Tischendorf have been adopted where he differs from other Editors. His practice has likewise been followed as regards the insertion or omission of Iota subscript in infinitives (as ζῆν, ἐπιτιμᾶν), and adverbs (as κρυφῆ, λάθρα), and the mode of printing such composite forms as διαπαντός, διατί, τουτέστι, and the like.
The punctuation of Tischendorf in his eighth edition has usually been adopted: where it is departed from, the deviation, together with the reasons that have led to it, will be found mentioned in the Notes. Quotations are indicated by a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence. Where a whole verse is omitted, its omission is noted in the margin (e.g. Matthew 17:21; Matthew 23:12).
The text is printed in paragraphs corresponding to those of the English Edition.
Although it was necessary that the text of all the portions of the New Testament should be uniformly constructed in accordance with these general rules, each editor has been left at perfect liberty to express his preference for other readings in the Notes.
It is hoped that a text formed on these principles will fairly represent the results of modern criticism, and will at least be accepted as preferable to “the Received Text” for use in Schools.
J. J. STEWART PEROWNE.
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
THE GOSPELS
THE word Gospel[2] is the Saxon translation of the Greek Εὐαγγέλιον. In early Greek (e.g. in Homer) this word meant the reward given to one who brought good tidings. In Attic Greek it also meant a sacrifice for good tidings, but was always used in the plural εὐαγγέλια. Hence it became, even among Romans, a kind of exclamation, like our “Good news!” (Cic. ad Att. ii. 3, εὐαγγέλια, Valerius absolutus est). In later Greek, as in Plutarch and Lucian, εὐαγγέλιον meant the good news actually delivered. Among all Greek-speaking Christians the word was naturally adopted to describe the best and gladdest tidings ever delivered to the human race, the good news of the Kingdom of God. In the address of the Angel to the Shepherds we find the words “I bring you good tidings of great joy,” where the verb used is εὐαγγελίζομαι. This verb is specially common in St Luke and St Paul. The substantive does not occur in St Luke. In St John the only instance of either verb or substantive is Revelation 14:6 (where it does not refer to the Gospel). In St Paul it occurs 61 times. From this Greek word are derived the French Évangile, the Italian Evangelio, the Portuguese Evangelho, &c. Naturally the word which signified “good news” soon came to be used as the title of the books which contained the history of that good news.
The existence of four separate, and mainly if not absolutely, independent Gospels, is a great blessing to the Church of Christ. It furnishes us with such a weight of contemporaneous testimony as is wanting to the vast majority of events in Ancient History. A fourfold cord is not easily broken.
Of these four Gospels the first three are often called the Synoptic Gospels. The Greek word Synopsis has the same meaning as the Latin Conspectus, and the first three Evangelists are called “Synoptists” because their Gospels can be arranged and harmonised, section by section, in a tabular form, since they are mainly based on a common outline. The term appears to be quite modern, but has been rapidly brought into general use, since its adoption by Griesbach. It is intended to indicate the difference of plan which marks these Gospels as compared with that of St John[3].
In the Synoptic Gospels we find much that is common to all, and something which is peculiar to each. It has been ascertained by Stroud that “if the total contents of the several Gospels be represented by 100, the following table is obtained[4]:”
|St Mark |has |7 |peculiarities, |and |93 |coincidences. |
|St Matthew |has |42 |peculiarities, |and |58 |coincidences. |
|St Luke |has |59 |peculiarities, |and |41 |coincidences. |
|St John |has |92 |peculiarities, |and |8 |coincidences. |
Reuss has further calculated that the total number of verses common to all the Synoptists is about 350; that St Matthew has 350 verses peculiar to himself, St Mark 68, and St Luke 541. The coincidences are usually in the record of sayings: the peculiarities in the narrative portion. In St Matthew, the narrative occupies about one fourth; in St Mark one half; and in St Luke one third.
Another important fact is that when St Matthew and St Luke verbally agree, St Mark always agrees with them; that the resemblances between St Luke and St Mark are much closer than those between St Luke and St Matthew[5]; that where St Mark has additional touches St Luke usually has them also, but not when these additions are found only in St Matthew; and that where St Mark is silent, St Luke often differs from St Matthew[6].
The dates at which the four Gospels were published cannot be ascertained with certainty; but there are some reasons to believe that St Matthew’s was written first, possibly in Aramaic, and about A.D. 64; that St Mark’s and St Luke’s were published within a few years of this date[7], and certainly before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; and that St John’s was written in old age at Ephesus before the year A.D. 85. It is probable that most, if not all, of St Paul’s Epistles had been written before the earliest Gospel was published in its present form. To what extent the Synoptists were influenced by written records of previous oral teaching is a difficult and complicated question about which there have been multitudes of theories, as also respecting the question whether any of the three used the Gospel of either of the others. That previous attempts to narrate the Life of Christ were in existence when St Luke wrote we know from his own testimony; but it may be regarded as certain that among these “attempts” he did not class the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark. The inference that he was either unaware of the existence of those Gospels, or made no direct use of them, suggests itself with the utmost force when we place side by side any of the events which they narrate in common, and mark the minute and inexplicable differences which incessantly occur even amid general similarity.
The language employed by the Evangelists is that dialect of Greek which was in their day generally current—the Macedonian or Hellenistic Greek. It was a stage of the Greek language less perfect than that of the classical period, but admirably plastic and forcible (see infra Introd. Chap. VI. p. 38).
ST MATTHEW and ST JOHN were Apostles and eyewitnesses of the ministry of our Lord from the baptism of John until the Ascension. The other two Evangelists were, as St Jerome says, not Apostles, but “Apostolic men.” ST MARK may have been a partial eyewitness of some of the later scenes of the life of Christ, and it is the unanimous tradition of the early Church that his Gospel reflects for us the direct testimony of St Peter. ST LUKE expressly implies that he was not an eyewitness, but he made diligent use of all the records which he found in existence, and he derived his testimony from the most authentic sources. It may be regarded as certain that he sets before us that conception of the Life and Work of Christ which was the basis of the teaching of St Paul[8]. Thus we have the Gospel “according to” (κατὰ) the view and teaching of four great Apostles, St Matthew, St Peter, St Paul[9], and St John.
The differences between the SYNOPTISTS and ST JOHN have been noticed from the earliest ages of the Church. They are mainly these. The Synoptists dwell almost exclusively on Christ’s Ministry in Galilee; St John on His Ministry in Judaea. The Synoptists dwell chiefly on the Miracles, Parables, and external incidents of His work; in St John the prominent feature is the high discourse and inmost spiritual meaning of His life. The Synoptists portrayed Him to the world; St John more specially for the Church. To use a common term they present a more objective, and St John a more subjective view of the Work of Christ. The complete portraiture of the Saviour “comprised the fulness of an outward presence, as well as the depth of a secret life. In this respect the records correspond to the subjects. The first record [that of the Synoptists] is manifold; the second is one: the first is based on the experience of a society, the second on the intuition of a loved disciple.” “The Synoptic Gospels contain the Gospel of the infant Church; that of St John the Gospel of its maturity. The first combine to give the wide experience of the many, the last embraces the deep mysteries treasured up by the one.” “The threefold portrait of Charles I. which Vandyke prepared for the sculptor is an emblem of the work of the first three Evangelists: the complete outward shape is fashioned, and then at last another kindles the figure with a spiritual life[10].” But the object of each and all of the Gospels is that expressed by St John “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name[11].”
Elaborate and repeated attempts have been made to settle the interrelation of the Synoptists with each other. All such attempts have hitherto failed. Each Gospel in turn has been assumed to be the earliest of the three; and the supposition that the other two worked on the existing narrative of a third has required for its support as many subordinate hypotheses of fresh recension, translation, &c., as the Ptolemaic system of Astronomy required orbs and epicycles to account for its theory of the motions of the heavenly bodies. The three main theories have been: 1. The theory of an original written document from which all borrowed. This original has been sometimes supposed to be the first form of St Matthew, more often of St Mark, and sometimes even of St Luke. This theory is now generally abandoned and is absolutely untenable. 2. The theory of a common unwritten tradition. 3. The theory of the Tübingen school of theologians, who held that each of the Synoptic Gospels was based on the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” which the Evangelists modified with reference to dogmatic conceptions. The general conclusion to which all recent enquiries seem to point is [1] That there existed in the Early Church a cycle of authoritative oral teaching, which being committed to memory[12] tended to assume a fixed peculiarity of diction; [2] That this authoritative tradition was gradually committed to writing by some of the disciples; [3] That these written memorials were utilized by those who “attempted” to set forth a continuous sketch of the ministry of Christ; and [4] That the most authentic and valuable of them were to a considerable extent incorporated into the narratives of the Evangelists themselves. If some such hypothesis as this be not adequate to account (α) for resemblances which extend even to the use of peculiar verbal forms (ἀφέωνται, Luke 5:20), diminutives (ὠτίον, Matthew 26:51), and the use of a double augment (Matthew 12:13); and (β) for differences which extend to the transposition of whole sections, and the omission of entire discourses,—at least no more reasonable suggestion has yet been made[13].
Early Christian writers compared the four Gospels to that river, which, flowing out of Eden to water the garden of God, was parted into four heads compassing lands like that of Havilah of which “the gold is good” and where is “bdellium and the onyx stone.”
“Paradisi hic fluenta
Nova fluunt sacramenta
Quae descendunt coelitus:
His quadrigis deportatur
Mundo Deus, sublimatur
Istis arca vectibus.”
ADAM DE S. VICTORE.
A still more common symbol of the four Evangelists was derived from “the Chariot” as the chapter was called which describes the vision of Ezekiel by the river Chebar[14]. Hence as early as Irenaeus (died circ. 202) we find the expression εὐαγγέλιον τετράμορφον or “four-formed Gospel.” Each one of the living creatures combined in “the fourfold-visaged four” was taken as the emblem of one of the Evangelists. The applications differed, but the one which has been almost universally adopted, and of which there are traces in Christian Art as far back as the fifth century, assigns the Man or Angel to St Matthew, the Lion to St Mark, the Ox to St Luke, and the Eagle to St John[15]. The reasons offered for the adoption of these emblems also differed; but it was usually said that the Man is assigned to St Matthew because he brings out Christ’s human and Messianic character; the Lion to St Mark because he sets forth the awfulness (Luke 10:24; Luke 10:32), energy, power and royal dignity (Luke 1:22; Luke 1:27, Luke 2:10, Luke 5:30, Luke 6:2; Luke 6:5, &c.) of Christ; the Ox, the sacrificial victim, to St Luke, because he illustrates the Priestly office of Christ; and the Eagle to St John, because, as St Augustine says, “he soars to heaven as an eagle above the clouds of human infirmity, and reveals to us the mysteries of Christ’s Godhead, and of the Trinity in Unity, and the felicities of Life Eternal; and gazes on the light of Immutable Truth with a keen and steady ken[16].” Thus, to quote the eloquent language of Bishop Wordsworth, “The Christian Church, looking at the origin of the Four Gospels, and the attributes which God has in rich measure been pleased to bestow upon them by His Holy Spirit, found a Prophetic picture of them in the Four living Cherubim, named from heavenly knowledge, seen by the Prophet Ezekiel at the river of Chebar. Like them the Gospels are Four in number; like them they are the Chariot of God Who sitteth between the Cherubim; like them, they bear Him on a winged throne into all lands; like them they move wherever the Spirit guides them: like them they are marvellously joined together, intertwined with coincidences and differences; wing interwoven with wing, and wheel interwoven with wheel: like them they are full of eyes, and sparkle with heavenly light: like them they sweep from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven, and fly with lightning speed and with the noise of many waters. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words to the end of the world[17].”
But whatever may be the archaeological and artistic interest of these universal symbols, it must be admitted that they are fanciful and arbitrary; and this is rendered more obvious from the varying manner in which they used to be employed and justified. It is much more important to get some clear and unimaginative conception of the distinctive peculiarities of each Evangelist. And at this it is not difficult to arrive.
Combining the data furnished by early and unanimous tradition with the data furnished by the Gospels themselves we see generally that,
i. ST MATTHEW wrote in Judaea, and wrote for Jews, possibly even in Aramaic, as was the general belief of the early Church. If so, however, the Aramaic original is hopelessly lost, and there is at least a possibility that there may have been a confusion between a supposed Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew and the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” which may have been chiefly based on it and which was in use among the Nazarenes and Ebionites. However that may be, the object which St Matthew had in view goes far to illustrate the specialities of his Gospel. It is the Gospel of the Hebrew nation; the Gospel of the Past; the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah[18]. Thus it opens with the words “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:”—the son of David and therefore the heir of the Jewish kingdom: the son of Abraham and therefore the heir of the Jewish promise. That it is the Gospel which connects Christianity with Judaism and with the Past appears in the constantly recurrent formula “that it might be fulfilled.” So completely is the work of Christ regarded as the accomplishment of Prophecy that in no less than five incidents narrated in the first two chapters, the Evangelist points to the verification of ancient predictions. Another marked peculiarity of the Gospel is its didactic character. It records with fulness five great discourses—The sermon on the Mount[19]; the address to the Apostles[20]; the parables on the Kingdom of Heaven[21]; the discourse on Offences and on Forgiveness[22]; and the discourses and parables of Judgment[23]. These discourses,—which all bear on the triple offices of our Lord as Lawgiver, King, and Judge of the New Kingdom,—make the Gospel of St Matthew “as it were the ultimatum of Jehovah to His ancient people;—Recognise Jesus as your Messiah, or accept Him as your Judge[24].”
ii. ST MARK wrote in Rome for the Roman world, during the imprisonment and before the death of his teacher and spiritual father, St Peter (1 Peter 5:13). His Gospel is emphatically the Gospel of the Present; the Gospel of Jesus apart from retrospect or prophecy; of Jesus as the Lord of the World. The speech of St Peter to Cornelius has been called “the Gospel of St Mark in brief.” St Mark’s Gospel consists of “Apostolic Memoirs” marked by the graphic vividness which is due to the reminiscences of an eyewitness; it is the Gospel of which it was the one aim to describe our Lord as He lived and moved among men. The notion that St Mark was a mere compiler of St Matthew (tamquam pedissequus et breviator ejus, Aug.) has long been exploded. He abounds in independent notices which have led many Germans to regard his Gospel, or some form of it, as the original Gospel (Proto-Marcus, Ur-Marcus); but this theory requires the intercalation of such a multitude of subordinate hypotheses, that it now finds but few supporters.
iii. ST LUKE wrote in Greece for the Hellenic world[25]. In style this Gospel is the purest; in order the most artistic and historical. It forms the first half of a great narrative which traced the advance of Christianity from Jerusalem to Antioch, to Macedonia, to Achaia, to Ephesus, to Rome. Hence it neither leans to the yearnings of the past[26], nor is absorbed in the glories of the present, but is written with special reference to the aspirations of the future. It sets forth Jesus to us neither as the Messiah of the Jews only, nor as the Universal Ruler, but as the Saviour of sinners. It is a Gospel not national, but cosmopolitan; not regal, but human. It is the Gospel for the world; it connects Christianity with man. Hence the genealogy of Jesus is traced not only to David and to Abraham, but to Adam and to God[27].
iv. One more great sphere of existence remained—Eternity. Beyond these records of dawning and expanding Christianity, there was needed some record of Christianity in its inmost life; something which should meet the wants of the spirit and of the reason: and St John dropped the great keystone into the soaring arch of Christian revelation, when, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he drew the picture of Christ, neither as Messiah only nor as King only, nor even only as the Saviour of mankind, but as the Incarnate Word;—not only as the Son of Man who ascended into heaven, but as the Son of God who came down from heaven; not only as the Divine Man but as the Incarnate God. The circle of Gospel revelation was, as it were, finally rounded into a perfect symbol of eternity when St John was inspired to write that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth.”
To sum up these large generalizations in a form which has been recognised by all thoughtful students as giving us a true though not an exclusive or exhaustive aspect of the differences of the Four Gospels, we may say that
ST MATTHEW’S is the Gospel for the Jews; the Gospel of the Past; the Gospel which sees in Christianity a fulfilment of Judaism; the Gospel of Discourses; the Didactic Gospel; the Gospel which represents Christ as the Messiah of the Jew.
ST MARK’S is the Gospel for the Romans; the Gospel of the Present; the Gospel of incident; the anecdotical Gospel; the Gospel which represents Christ as the Son of God and Lord of the world.
ST LUKE’S is the Gospel for the Greeks; the Gospel of the Future; the Gospel of Progressive Christianity, of the Universality and Gratuitousness of Redemption; the Historic Gospel; the Gospel of Jesus as the Good Physician and the Saviour of Mankind.
ST JOHN’S is pre-eminently the Gospel for the Church; the Gospel of Eternity; the Spiritual Gospel; the Gospel of Christ as the Eternal Son, and the Incarnate Word.
If we were to choose special mottoes as expressive of main characteristics of the Gospels, they might be as follows:—
St Matthew: “I am not come to destroy but to fulfil,” Luke 5:17.
St Mark: “Jesus came.… preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God,” Luke 1:14.
St Luke: “Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil,” Acts 10:38 (comp. Luke 4:18)[28].
St John: “The Word was made flesh,” Luke 1:14.
CHAPTER II
LIFE OF ST LUKE
“Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri;
Utilior, per quem tot didicere mori.”
“He was a physician: and so, to all, his words are medicines of the drooping soul.” S. JER. Ep. ad Paulin.
If we sift what we know about St Luke from mere guesses and traditions, we shall find that our information respecting him is exceedingly scanty.
He does not once mention himself by name in the Gospel or in the Acts of the Apostles, though the absolutely unanimous voice of ancient tradition, coinciding as it does with many conspiring probabilities derived from other sources, can leave no shadow of doubt that he was the author of those books.
There are but three places in Scripture in which his name is mentioned. These are Colossians 4:14, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you;” 2 Timothy 4:11, “Only Luke is with me;” and Philemon 1:24, where he is mentioned as one of Paul’s “fellow labourers.” From these we see that St Luke was the faithful companion of St Paul, both in his first Roman imprisonment, when he still had friends about him, and in his second Roman imprisonment, when friend after friend deserted him, and was ‘ashamed of his chain.’ From the context of the first allusion we also learn that he was not “of the circumcision,” and indeed tradition has always declared that he was a Gentile, and a ‘proselyte of the gate[29].’
The attempt to identify him with “Lucius of Cyrene” in Acts 13:1 is a mere error, since his name Lucas is an abbreviation not of Lucius but of Lucanus, as Annas for Ananus, Zenas for Zenodorus, Apollos for Apollonius, &c. The guess that he was one of the Seventy disciples is refuted by his own words, nor is there any probability that he was one of the Greeks who desired to see Jesus (John 12:20) or one of the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:13)[30]. Eusebius and Jerome say that he was a Syrian of Antioch, and this agrees with the intimate knowledge which he shews about the condition and the teachers of that Church. If in Acts 11:28 we could accept the isolated reading of the Codex Bezae (a reading known also to St Augustine), which there adds συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν, ‘but while we were assembled together,’ it would prove that St Luke had been acquainted with the Apostle shortly after his arrival from Tarsus to assist the work of Barnabas. In that case he may well have been one of the earliest Gentile converts whom St Paul admitted into the full rights of Christian brotherhood, and with whom St Peter was afterwards, for one weak moment, ashamed to eat. We cannot however trace his connexion with St Paul with any certainty till the sudden appearance of the first personal pronoun in the plural in Acts 16:10, from which we infer that he joined the Apostle at Troas, and accompanied him to Macedonia, becoming thereby one of the earliest Evangelists in Europe. It is no unreasonable conjecture that his companionship was the more necessary because St Paul had been recently suffering from an acute visitation of the malady which he calls “the stake, or cross, in the flesh.” Since the “we” is replaced by “they” after the departure of Paul and Silas from Philippi (Acts 18:1), we infer that St Luke was left at that town in charge of the infant Macedonian Church. A physician could find means of livelihood anywhere, and he seems to have stayed at Philippi for some seven years, for we find him in that Roman colony when the Apostle spent an Easter there on his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5). There is however every reason to believe that during this period he was not idle, for if he were “the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel” (i.e. in preaching the good tidings) “throughout all the churches” (2 Corinthians 8:18), we find him acting with Titus as one of the delegates for the collection and custody of the contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem. The identification of St Luke with this “brother” no doubt originated in a mistaken notion that “the Gospel” here means the written Gospel[31]; but it is probable on other grounds, and is supported by the tradition embodied in the superscription, which tells us that the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was conveyed from Philippi by Titus and Luke.
From Philippi St Luke accompanied his friend and teacher to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18), and there we again lose all record of his movements. Since, however, he was with St Paul at Caesarea when he was sent as a prisoner to Rome, it is probable that he was the constant companion of his imprisonment in that town. If the great design of writing the Gospel was already in his mind, the long and otherwise unoccupied stay of two years in Caesarea would not only give him ample leisure, but would also furnish him with easy access to those sources of information which he tells us he so diligently used. It would further enable him to glean some particulars of the ministry of Jesus from survivors amid the actual scenes where He had lived[32]. From Caesarea he accompanied St Paul in the disastrous voyage which ended in shipwreck at Malta, and proceeding with him to Rome he remained by his side until his liberation, and probably never left him until the great Apostle received his martyr’s crown. To him—to his allegiance, his ability, and his accurate preservation of facts—we are alone indebted for the greater part of what we know about the life of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
We finally lose sight of St Luke at the abrupt close of the Acts of the Apostles. Although we learn from the Pastoral Epistles[33] that he must have lived with St Paul for some two years beyond the point which his narrative has there reached, he may not have arranged his book until after Paul was dead, and the course of the narrative may have been suddenly cut short either by accident or even by his own death. Irenaeus (adv. Haer. III. 1) expressly tells us that even his Gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul. The most trustworthy tradition says that he died in Greece; and it was believed that Constantine transferred his remains to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople from Patrae in Achaia. Gregory of Nazianzus tells us in a vague way that he was martyred, but it is idle to repeat such worthless legends as that he was crucified on an olive-tree at Elaea in the Peloponnesus, &c., which rest on the sole authority of Nicephorus, a writer who died after the middle of the 15th century. The fancy that he was a painter, often as it has been embodied in art, owes its origin to the same source, and seems only to have arisen from the discovery of a rude painting of the Virgin in the Catacombs with an inscription stating that it was “one of seven painted by Luca.” It is not impossible that there may have been some confusion between the name of the Evangelist and that of a Greek painter in one of the monasteries of Mount Athos.
But leaving ‘the shifting quagmire of baseless traditions’ we see from St Luke’s own writings, and from authentic notices of him, that he was master of a good Greek style;—an accomplished writer, a close observer, an unassuming historian, a well-instructed physician, and a most faithful friend[34]. If the Theophilus to whom he dedicates both his works was the Theophilus mentioned in the Clementines as a wealthy Antiochene, who gave up his house to the preaching of St Peter, then St Luke may have been his freedman. Physicians frequently held no higher rank than that of slaves, and Lobeck, one of the most erudite of modern Greek scholars, has noticed that contractions in as like Lucas from Lucanus, were peculiarly common in the names of slaves. One more conjecture may be mentioned. St Luke’s allusions to nautical matters, especially in Acts 27, are at once remarkably accurate and yet unprofessional in tone. Now the ships of the ancients were huge constructions, holding sometimes upwards of 300 people, and in the uncertain length of the voyages of those days, we may assume that the presence of a physician amid such multitudes was a matter of necessity. Mr Smith of Jordanhill, in his admirable monograph on the voyage of St Paul, has hence been led to the inference that St Luke must have sometimes exercised his art in the crowded merchantmen which were incessantly coasting from point to point of the Mediterranean. However this may be, the naval experience of St Luke as well as his medical knowledge would have rendered him a most valuable companion to the suffering Apostle in his constant voyages.
CHAPTER III
AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL
Supposed allusions to St Luke’s Gospel may be adduced from Polycarp († A.D. 167), Papias, and Clement of Rome (A.D. 95); but passing over these as not absolutely decisive, it is certain that the Gospel was known to Justin Martyr († A.D. 168), who, though he does not name the authors of the Gospels, makes distinct reference to them, and has frequent allusions to, and citations from, the Gospel of St Luke. Thus he refers to the Annunciation; the Enrolment in the days of Quirinius; the sending of Jesus bound to Herod; the last words on the cross, &c.; and in some passages he uses language only found in this Gospel.
Hegesippus has at least two passages which appear to be verbal quotations from Luke 20:21; Luke 23:24.
The Gospel is mentioned as the work of St Luke in the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, of which the date is not later than A.D. 170.
Among heretics it was known to, and used by, the Ophites; by the Gnostics, Basilides and Valentinus; by Heracleon (about A.D. 180), who wrote a comment on it; by the author of the Pistis Sophia; and by Marcion (about A.D. 140), who not only knew the Gospel, but adopted it as the basis of his own Gospel with such mutilations as suited his peculiar heresies[35]. This fact is not only asserted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, &c., but may now be regarded as conclusively proved by Volkmar, and is accepted by modern criticism. Marcion omitted chapters 1, 2 and joined Luke 3:1 with Luke 4:31.
It is alluded to in the Clementine Homilies (about A.D. 175); in the Recognitions; and in the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, A.D. 177.
Celsus refers to the genealogy of Christ as traced upwards to Adam.
Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 170) makes direct allusions to it.
Irenaeus (about A.D. 180) expressly attributes it to St Luke; Tertullian († A.D. 220) and Clemens of Alexandria († about A.D. 216) also quoted it as St Luke’s. Origen († A.D. 254) speaks of the ‘Four Gospels admitted by all the Churches under heaven;’ and Eusebius ranks it among the homologoumena, i.e. those works of whose genuineness and authenticity there was no doubt in the Church.
It is found in the Peshito Syriac (3rd or 4th century), and the Itala.
We may add, that it must now be regarded as all but certain that Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, made a Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels before the end of the second century; for the Mechitarist fathers at Venice have published a translation, from the Armenian, of a work which is recognised as a commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron by Ephraem Syrus in the fourth century; and from this work it is clear that Tatian’s ‘Harmony’ was a close weaving together of our four present Gospels.
CHAPTER IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL
“God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”
Romans 8:3.
“The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Luke 19:10.
“Whose joy is, to the wandering sheep
To tell of the great shepherd’s love;
To learn of mourners while they weep
The music that makes mirth above;
Who makes the Gospel all his theme,
The Gospel all his pride and praise.”
KEBLE, St Luke’s Day.
This rich and precious Gospel, which has been strikingly designated “le plus beau livre qu’il y ait[36],” is marked, as are the others, by special characteristics.
Thus:
(i) St Luke must be ranked as the first Christian hymnologist. It is to his inspired care that we owe the preservation of three sacred hymns, besides the Ave Maria (Luke 1:28-33) and the Gloria in Excelsis (Luke 2:14), which have been used for ages in the worship of the Church: the BENEDICTUS, or Song of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-79), used in our Morning Service; the MAGNIFICAT, or Song of the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1:46-55); and the NUNC DIMITTIS, or Song of Symeon (Luke 2:29-32), used in our Evening Service[37]. In these Canticles the New Aeon is represented not merely as the fulfilment of the Old, but also as a kingdom of the Spirit; as a spring of life and joy opened to the world; as a mystery, prophesied of indeed because it is eternal, but now in the appointed time revealed to men[38].
(ii) In this Gospel thanksgiving is also prominent. “The Gospel of the Saviour begins with hymns, and ends with praises; and as the thanksgivings of the meek are recorded in the first chapter, so in the last we listen to the gratitude of the faithful[39].” Mention is made no less than seven times of ‘glorifying God’ by the utterance of gratitude and praise (Luke 2:20, Luke 5:25, Luke 7:16, Luke 13:13, Luke 17:15, Luke 18:43, Luke 23:47).
(iii) It also gives special prominence to Prayer. It not only records (as Matthew 6) the Lord’s Prayer, but alone preserves to us the fact that our Lord prayed on six distinct and memorable occasions. [1] At His baptism. [2] After cleansing the leper. [3] Before calling the Twelve Apostles. [4] At His Transfiguration. [5] On the Cross for His murderers, and [6] with His last breath[40]. St Luke too, like St Paul, insists on the duty of unceasing Prayer as taught by Christ (Luke 18:1, Luke 11:8, Luke 21:36, Romans 12:12, &c.); and emphasizes this instruction by alone recording the two Parables which encourage us to a persistent energy, a holy importunity, a storming of the kingdom of Heaven by violence in our prayers—the parables of the Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-13) and of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8).
(iv) But the Gospel is marked mainly by its presentation of the Good Tidings in their universality and gratuitousness. It is pre-eminently the Gospel of pardon and of pity. “By grace ye are saved through faith[41],” and “the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:47)[42], might stand as the motto of St Luke as of St Paul. Thus the word ‘grace’ (χάρις, eight times), ‘saviour’ and ‘salvation’ (only once each in St John), and ‘tell good tidings of’ (ten times), occur in it far more frequently than in the other Gospels; and these are applied neither to Jews mainly, nor to Gentiles mainly, but universally[43]. It is the Gospel of “a Saviour” and of “good will towards men;” the Gospel of Jesus, not only as the heir of David’s throne, and of Abraham’s promise, but as the Federal Head and Representative of Humanity—“the son of Adam, which was the Son of God.” And what a picture does this great ideal painter set forth to us of Christ! He comes with angel carols; He departs with priestly benediction. We catch our first glimpse of Him in the manger-cradle at Bethlehem, our last as from the slopes of Olivet He vanishes “into the cloud” with pierced hands upraised to bless! The Jewish religion of that day had degenerated into a religion of hatreds. The then ‘religious world,’ clothing its own egotism under the guise of zeal for God, had for the most part lost itself in a frenzy of detestations. The typical Pharisee hated the Gentiles; hated the Samaritans; hated the tax-gatherers. He despised poverty and despised womanhood. In St Luke, towards every age, towards either sex, towards all nations, towards all professions, towards men of every opinion and every shade of character, our Blessed Lord appears as CHRISTUS CONSOLATOR the good Physician of bodies and of souls; the Gospeller of the poor; the Brother who loves all His brethren in the great family of man; the unwearied healer and ennobler of sick and suffering humanity; the Desire of all nations; the Saviour of the world, who “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). In accordance with this conception,
(v) St Luke reveals especially the sacredness of infancy. He alone tells us of the birth and infancy of the Baptist; the Annunciation; the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth; the songs of the herald Angels; the Circumcision; the Presentation in the Temple; the growth of Jesus in universal favour and sweet submission. And he alone preserves the one anecdote of the Confirmation of Jesus at twelve years old which is the solitary flower gathered from the silence of thirty years. Hence this Gospel is preeminently anti-docetic[44]. St Luke alludes to the human existence of our Lord before birth (Luke 1:40); as a babe (Luke 2:16); as a little child (Luke 2:27); as a boy (Luke 2:40); and as a man (Luke 3:22).
(vi) He dwells especially on Christ’s ministry to the world; that He was to be a Light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the glory of His people Israel. He alone adds to the quotation from Isaiah respecting the mission of the Baptist the words “And ALL FLESH shall see the salvation of God.” He alone introduces the parallels of Elijah sent to the heathen Sarepta, and Elisha healing the heathen Naaman; as well as full details of that mission of the Seventy who by their number typified a mission to the supposed number of the nations of the world. St Luke’s Gospel might stand as a comment on the words of St Paul at Athens, that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men … that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27).
(vii) St Luke’s is specially the Gospel of Womanhood, and he prominently records the graciousness and tenderness of Christ towards many women[45]. He tells us how Jesus raised the dead boy at Nain, being touched with compassion because “he was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow.” He alone tells us of the remarkable fact that Jesus in his earlier mission-journeys was accompanied not by warriors like David, not by elders like Moses, not by nobles and kings like the Herods, but by a most humble band of ministering women (Luke 8:1-3). His narrative in the first two chapters must have been derived from the Virgin Mary, and has been thought to shew in every line the pure and tender colouring of a woman’s thoughts. He alone mentions the widow Anna (Luke 2:36), and tells us about eager Martha cumbered with serving, and Mary choosing the better part (Luke 10:38-42); he alone how our Lord once addressed to a poor, crushed, trembling, humiliated woman the tender name of “daughter” (Luke 8:48), and how He spoke of another as a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16); he alone how He at once consoled and warned the “daughters of Jerusalem” who followed Him weeping to Calvary (Luke 23:28). The Scribes and Pharisees gathered up their robes in the streets and synagogues lest they should touch a woman, and held it a crime to look on an unveiled woman in public; our Lord suffered a woman to minister to Him out of whom He had cast seven devils.
(viii) He seems to delight in all the records which told of the mercy of the Saviour towards the poor, the humble, the despised (Luke 2:24, Luke 6:20-25; Luke 6:30, Luke 8:2-3, Luke 12:16-21; Luke 12:33, Luke 16:13; Luke 16:19-25, Luke 14:12-15, &c.). Hence his Gospel has even been called (though very erroneously) the Gospel of the Ebionites[46]. He narrates the Angel Visit to the humble maiden of Nazareth; the Angel Vision to the humble shepherds; the recognition of Jesus in the Temple by the unknown worshipper, and the aged widow. He records the beatitudes to the poor and the hungry, the parables of Dives and Lazarus and of the Rich Fool; the invitation of “the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind” to the Great Supper; the exaltation of the humble who choose the lowest seats; the counsel to the disciples to “sell what they have,” and to the Pharisees to “give alms.” He does not, however, denounce riches, but only the wealth that is not “rich towards God;” nor does he pronounce a beatitude upon poverty in the abstract, but only on the poverty which is patient and submissive. He had learnt from his Lord to ‘measure wisdom by simplicity, strength by suffering, dignity by lowliness.’
(ix) Further, this is specially the Gospel of the outcast,—of the Samaritan (Luke 9:52-56, Luke 17:11-19), the Publican, the harlot, the leper, and the Prodigal. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). The emotion of penitent faith is more sincere and more precious than a life of prudent orthodoxy; undissembling wickedness is less hateful than disguised insincerity. Such is the point of the parable of the Praying Publican. See instances in Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10); the Prodigal Son; Mary of Magdala (Luke 7:36-50); the woman with the issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48); the dying robber (Luke 23:39-43). This peculiarity is doubtless due to that intense spirit of sympathy which led St Luke alone of the Evangelists to record that the boy of Nain was the only son of his mother (Luke 7:12); and the ‘little maid’ of Jairus his only daughter (Luke 8:42); and the lunatic boy his father’s only son (Luke 9:38).
(x) Lastly, it is the Gospel of tolerance. There was a deadly blood-feud between the Jews and the Samaritans, and St Luke is careful to record how Jesus praised the one grateful Samaritan leper, and chose the good Samaritan rather than the indifferent Priest and icy-hearted Levite as the type of love to our neighbour. He also records two special and pointed rebukes of the Saviour against the spirit of intolerance:—one when the Sons of Thunder wanted to call down fire from heaven on the churlish Samaritan village—Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them: the other when He rebuked the narrowness which said “We forbad him, because he followeth not us,” with the words Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is for us[47].
We may notice further that St Luke’s Gospel is characterised by
(xi) Its careful chronological order (1–3);
(xii) Its very important preface.
(xiii) Its command of the Greek language[48].
(xiv) The prominence given to the antithesis between light and darkness, forgiveness and non-forgiveness, God and Satan (Luke 4:13, Luke 8:12, Luke 10:17-20, Luke 13:10-17, Luke 22:3; Luke 22:31-34).
(xv) The familiarity with the LXX[49] (ἐπίβαλλον, ἐπισιτισμὸς, ὕψιστος, στιγμή, ἀντιβάλλειν, εὔθετοι, περισπᾶσθαι, δοχή, λυσιτελεῖ &c.) and the Apocrypha (see Luke 12:19, Luke 18:8, Luke 6:35, Luke 1:42).
Although there is an Hebraic tinge in the hymns and speeches which St Luke merely records, and in narratives where he is following an earlier or Aramaic document, his own proper style abounds in isolated phrases and words chiefly classical[50], and his style is more flowing than that of St Matthew and St Mark. His peculiar skill as a writer lies rather in ‘psychologic comments[51],’ and the reproduction of conversations with their incidents, than in such graphic and vivid touches as those of St Mark. He is also a great master of light and shade, i.e. he shews remarkable skill in the presentation of profoundly instructive contrasts—e.g. Zacharias and Mary; Simon and the Sinful Woman; Martha and Mary; the Pharisee and the Publican; the Good Samaritan, Priest, and Levite; Dives and Lazarus; beatitudes and woes; tears and Hosannas; and the penitent and impenitent robber.
It is the presence of these characteristics that has earned for this Gospel the praise (already mentioned) of being “the most beautiful book that has ever been written[52].”
The Miracles peculiar to St Luke are
1. The miraculous draught of fishes. Luke 5:4-11.
2. The raising of the widow’s son at Nain. Luke 7:11-18.
3. The woman with the spirit of infirmity. Luke 13:11-17.
4. The man with the dropsy. Luke 14:1-6.
5. The ten lepers. Luke 17:11-19.
6. The healing of Malchus. Luke 22:50-51.
The Parables peculiar to St Luke are
1. The two debtors. Luke 7:41-43.
2. The good Samaritan. Luke 10:25-37.
3. The importunate friend. Luke 11:5-8.
4. The rich fool. Luke 12:16-21.
5. The barren fig-tree. Luke 13:6-9.
6. The lost piece of silver. Luke 15:8-10.
7. The prodigal son. Luke 15:11-32.
8. The unjust steward. Luke 16:1-13.
9. Dives and Lazarus. Luke 16:19-31.
10. The unjust Judges 18:1-8.
11. The Pharisee and the publican. Luke 18:10-14.
The two first chapters and the great section, Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:14, are mainly peculiar to St Luke.
And in addition to those already noted above, other remarkable incidents or utterances peculiar to him are John the Baptist’s answers to the people (Luke 3:10-14); the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44); the conversation with Moses and Elias (Luke 9:28-36); the bloody sweat (Luke 22:44); the sending of Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:7-12); the address to the Daughters of Jerusalem (27–31); the prayer, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34); the penitent robber (40–43); the disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31); particulars of the Ascension (Luke 24:50-53). Additional touches which are sometimes of great importance may be found in Luke 3:22 (“in a bodily shape”), Luke 4:13 (“for a season”), Luke 4:1-6, Luke 5:17; Luke 5:29; Luke 5:39, Luke 6:11, Luke 7:21, &c.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL
Many writers have endeavoured to arrange the contents of this and the other Gospels in schemes illustrative of the dogmatic connexions in accordance with which the various sections are supposed to be woven together and subordinated to each other. Without here giving any opinion about the other Gospels, I must state my conviction that, as far as St Luke is concerned, such hypothetic arrangements have not been successful. No two writers have agreed in their special schemes, and the fact that each writer who has attempted such an analysis has seized on very different points of connexion, shews that all such attempts have been more or less arbitrary, however ingenious. It seems to me that if the Gospels had been arranged on these purely subjective methods the clue to such arrangement would have been more obvious, and also that we should, in that case, lose something of that transparent and childlike simplicity of motive which adds such immense weight to the testimony of the Evangelists as the narrators of historic facts. Nor is it probable that the existence of this subjective symmetry of composition would have escaped the notice of so many centuries of Christian students and Fathers. When St Luke tells Theophilus that he had decided to set forth in order the accepted facts of the Christian faith, I believe that the order he had in view was mainly chronological, and that the actual sequence of events, so far as it was recoverable from the narratives (διηγήσεις) or the oral sources which he consulted, was his chief guide in the arrangement of his Gospel[53]. Various lessons may be observed or imagined in the order in which one event is placed after another, but these lessons lie deep in the chronological facts themselves, not in the method of the writer. The sort of analysis attempted by modern writers has hitherto only furnished each subsequent analyst with an opportunity for commenting on the supposed failures of his predecessors. For those however who disagree with these views, able and thoughtful endeavours to set forth the narrative in accordance with such a predetermined plan may be found in Van Oosterzee’s Introduction, § 5, in Westcott’s Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 364–366, and McClellan’s New Testament, 427–438.
A recent writer—the Rev. W. Stewart (The Plan of St Luke’s Gospel, Glasgow, 1873)—has endeavoured to shew that St Luke arranged many of his materials alphabetically, in accordance with the first letter of the word predominant in the section. He narrates the events in 1–3:20 and Luke 18:15 to Luke 24:53 in chronological order, as is shewn by the recurrent notes of time; but according to Mr Stewart the section Luke 3:21 to Luke 10:24 is arranged by its reference to subjects, and Luke 10:25 to Luke 18:14 by the alphabetical order of the word prominent in each section.
The Gospel falls quite simply and naturally into the following sections:—
I. INTRODUCTION. Luke 1:1-4.
II. THE PREPARATION FOR THE NATIVITY. Luke 1:5-80.
i. Announcement of the Forerunner. Luke 1:5-25.
ii. Announcement of the Saviour. 26–38.
iii. Hymns of thanksgiving of Mary and Elizabeth. 39–56.
iv. Birth and Circumcision of the Forerunner. 57–66.
The Benedictus. 67–79.
v. Growth of the Forerunner. 80.
III. NATIVITY OF THE SAVIOUR. Luke 2:1-20.
i. The Birth in the Manger. Luke 2:1-7.
Songs and thanksgivings of the Angels and the Shepherds. 8–20.
IV. THE INFANCY OF THE SAVIOUR. Luke 2:21-38.
i. The Circumcision. Luke 2:21.
ii. The Presentation in the Temple. 22–24.
Songs and thanksgivings of Simeon and Anna. 25–38.
V. THE BOYHOOD OF THE SAVIOUR. Luke 2:39-52.
i. His growth. 39, 40.
ii. His first visit to Jerusalem. 41–48.
iii. His first recorded words. 49, 50.
iv. His development from boyhood to manhood. 51, 52.
VI. THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SAVIOUR (Luke 3:1 to Luke 4:13),
i. In the preaching of John the Baptist. Luke 3:1-14, and His prophecy of the coming Messiah. 16–18.
(Parenthetic anticipation of John’s imprisonment. 19, 20.)
ii. By the descent of the Spirit and the Voice at the Baptism. 21, 22.
The Son of Adam and the Son of God. 23–38.
iii. By victory over the Tempter. Luke 4:1-13.
VII. LIFE AND EARLY MINISTRY OF THE SAVIOUR. Luke 4:14 to Luke 7:50.
i. His teaching in Galilee. Luke 4:14-15.
ii. His first recorded Sermon, and rejection by the Nazarenes. 16–30.
iii. His Work in Capernaum and the Plain of Gennesareth. Luke 4:31 to Luke 7:50.
iv. A great Sabbath at Capernaum. Luke 4:31-44.
α. Healing of a demoniac. 33–37.
β. Healing of Peter’s wife’s mother. 38, 39.
γ. Healing of a multitude of the sick. 40–44.
v. The miraculous draught of fishes. Luke 5:1-11.
vi. Work amid the sick, suffering, and sinful. Luke 5:12-32.
α. Healing of a leper and other works of mercy. 12–17.
β. Healing the paralytic. 18–26.
γ. The Call and feast of Matthew. 27–32.
vii. The Saviour teaching and doing good. Luke 5:33 to Luke 7:50.
α. The new and the old. Luke 5:33-39.
β. The Sabbath. Luke 6:1-12.
γ. Choosing of the Apostles. 13–16.
δ. The Sermon on the Mount. 17–49.
ε. The centurion’s servant. Luke 7:1-10.
ζ. The widow’s son raised from the dead. 11–17.
η. His witness to John the Baptist. 18–30.
θ. His complaint against that generation. 31–35.
ι. The woman that was a sinner. 36–50.
VIII. LATER MINISTRY IN GALILEE AND ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD. 8
i. The first Christian sisterhood. Luke 8:1-3.
ii. Incidents of two great days. 4–56.
α. The first Parable. 4–15.
β. The similitude of the Lamp. 16–18.
γ. Who are His mother and His brethren. 19–21.
δ. Stilling the storm. 22–25.
ε. The Gadarene demoniac. 26–40.
ζ. The daughter of Jairus and the woman with the issue of blood. 41–56.
IX. LATEST PHASES OF THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, AND JOURNEY NORTHWARDS. Luke 9:1-50.
i. Mission of the Twelve. Luke 9:1-6.
ii. Alarm of Herod. 7–9.
iii. Feeding the five thousand at Bethsaida Julias. 10–17.
iv. Culmination of the training of the Apostles. 18–50.
α. The Confession of St Peter. 18–22.
β. Warning of the coming end. 23–27.
γ. The Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. 28–36.
δ. The Lunatic Boy. 37–42.
ε. Nearer warnings of the coming end. 43–45.
ζ. Lesson of Humility. 46–48.
η. Lesson of Tolerance. 49, 50.
i. Tolerance to the Samaritans. The spirit of Elijah and the spirit of the Saviour. 51–56.
ii. The sacrifices of true discipleship. 57–62.
iii. The Mission of the Seventy. Luke 10:1-20.
iv. The Saviour’s joy at its success and blessedness. 21–24.
v. Love to our neighbour. The Good Samaritan. 25–37.
vi. The one thing needful. Martha and Mary. 38–42.
vii. Lessons of Prayer. Luke 11:1-13.
viii. Open rupture with the Pharisees, and connected incidents and warnings. Luke 11:14 to Luke 12:59.
ix. Teachings, Warnings, Parables, and Miracles, of the Journey in preparation for the coming end. Luke 13:1 to Luke 18:30.
α. Parables:
1. The Great Supper. Luke 14:15-24.
2. Shorter similitudes:
α. The Unfinished Tower. 25–30.
β. The Prudent King. 31–33.
γ. Savourless Salt. 34, 35.
3. The Lost Sheep. Luke 15:1-7.
4. The Lost Piece of Silver. 8–10.
5. The Prodigal Son. 11–32.
6. The Unjust Steward. Luke 16:1-12.
7. Warnings against avarice; Rich Man and Lazarus. 13–31.
β. Shorter sayings:
Offences, Luke 17:1-2. Forgiveness, Luke 17:3-4. Faith, Luke 17:5-6. Service, Luke 17:7-10. Gratitude (the Ten Lepers), Luke 17:11-19. Coming of the kingdom of God, Luke 17:20-37. Prayer (the Importunate Widow), Luke 18:1-8. The Pharisee and the Publican, Luke 18:9-14. Children, Luke 18:15-17. Sacrifice for Christ’s sake. The Great Refusal, Luke 18:18-30.
XI. LAST STAGE OF THE JOURNEY FROM JERICHO TO JERUSALEM. Luke 18:31 to Luke 19:46.
i. Prediction of the approaching end. Luke 18:31-34.
ii. The healing of Blind Bartimaeus. Luke 18:35-43.
iii. The Repentant Publican, Zacchaeus. Luke 19:1-10.
iv. The Parable of the Pounds. 10–27.
v. The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. 28–40.
vi. The Saviour weeping over Jerusalem. 41–44.
vii. The Cleansing of the Temple. 45, 46.
XII. THE LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR’S LIFE. Luke 19:47 to Luke 21:38.
i. The Day of Questions. 20
α. Question of the Priests and Elders. 1–8.
Parable of the Vineyard. 9–18.
β. Question about the tribute-money. 19–26.
γ. Question of the Sadducees. 27–39.
δ. Question of Christ. 39–44.
Last denunciation of the Scribes. 45–47.
ii. Farewell to the Temple, and last warnings. 21
α. The widow’s mite. 1–4.
β. Prophecy against the Temple. 5, 6.
γ. Signs and warnings of the last times. 7–38.
XIII. LAST HOURS OF THE SAVIOUR ON EARTH. Luke 22:1 to Luke 23:49.
i. The plots of enemies. Luke 22:1-6.
ii. The Last Supper. Warnings and farewells. 7–38.
iii. The Agony in the Garden. 39–46.
iv. The Betrayal. 47–49.
v. The Arrest. 50–53.
vi. Trial before the Priests, and Peter’s denials. 54–62.
First derision. 63–65.
vii. Trial before the Sanhedrim. 66–71.
viii. Trial before Pilate, and first acquittal. Luke 23:1-4.
ix. Trial before Herod. Second derision, and acquittal. 5–12.
x. Pilate’s endeavour to release Him. The Jews choose Barabbas. Condemnation to Death. 13–26.
xi. The Daughters of Jerusalem. 27–31.
xii. The Crucifixion. 32–38.
xiii. The Penitent Robber. 39–45.
xiv. The Saviour’s Death. 46–49.
XIV. THE BURIAL, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION. Luke 23:50 to Luke 24:53.
i. The Entombment. Luke 23:50-56.
ii. The Resurrection. Luke 24:1-12.
iii. The Disciples at Emmaus. 13–32.
iv. Appearance to the Twelve, and last teachings of the Risen Saviour. 33–49.
XV. THE ASCENSION. 50–53.
In making this synopsis I have merely followed plain and obvious indications without being influenced by any temptation to produce numerical concinnity. It will however be at once observed that in the sections and subsections we find a recurrence of the sacred numbers three and seven[55]. Further attention will be called to this point in the subsequent notes. By regarding various sections as a conclusion or appendix, the prevalence of these numbers might easily be made still more obvious. The Greek training of the Evangelist would lead him to this symmetrical arrangement, and his familiarity with Aramaic documents explains his partiality for the Numbers 3, 7.
CHAPTER VI
HELLENISTIC GREEK
The common dialect (ἡ κοινή) was composed of various elements, and owed its origin and dissemination to the conquests of Alexander the Great. It is a somewhat corrupt and loose Attic, with peculiarities derived from the old Doric Macedonian, and from other sources. It was spoken at Alexandria, in which city there was a large conflux of men of different nationalities. It is the dialect in which the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was written by Jews residing in Egypt. This accounts for the Hebraic and Oriental idioms which we find in their dialect, and these idioms took root the more readily because large colonies of Jews were to be found all along the coasts of the Mediterranean, and indeed in almost every region of the civilised world[56].
The word Ἑλληνίζω came to mean ‘I speak Greek as a foreigner,’ but the word Hellenist generally means a Greek-speaking Jew, and the only writings in this dialect are those of Jews.
The peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek are found [1] in its phraseology, [2] in its syntax.
I. In its phraseology (A) it admits
α. New forms of words, as ψεῦσμα, νῖκος, νουθεσία, ἐκχύνειν, στήκω, ὀμνύω for ψεῦδος, νίκη, νουθέτησις, ἐκχέειν, ἵστημι, ὄμνυμι.
β. Poetic words, as αὐθεντεῖν, ἀλέκτωρ, ἔσθω, βρέχω, ἄφαντος, αἶνος, ῥομφαία.
γ. Dialectic forms, e.g. (i.) Ionisms, such as γογγύζω, φορτίζω, σκορπίζω, γήρει, εἶπα; (ii) Aeolisms, such as the opt. in εια, ἐξουθενεῖν, ἀποκτέννω, σπέῤῥω; (iii) Dorisms, such as λιμὸς fem., ἤτω, ἀφέωνται; (iv) Latin words like κῆνσος, σπεκουλάτωρ, σουδάριον, κεντουρίων, λεγεών (especially common in St Mark).
δ. Colloquial and vernacular expressions such as σαρῶ, ῥυμὴ, κράββατος, σκύλλω, ὑπωπιάζω.
B. It uses old words in new senses, as συνίστημι, ‘I prove;’ ὀψώνια, ‘wages;’ ἐρεύγεσθαι, ‘to utter;’ γέννημα, ‘fruit;’ λαλία, ‘language;’ παίδευω, ‘I chastise;’ εὐχαριστῶ, ‘I thank;’ ἀνακεῖμαι, ‘I recline.’
C. It frames new words and compounds, such as γρηγορῶ, παιδιόθεν, καλοποιεῖν, αἱματεκχυσία, ταπεινοφροσύνη, ἀκροβυστία, σκηνοπηγία, εἰδωλόθυτον, γλωσσόκομον, ἐκμυκτηρίζω, ἐκκακῶ, and many more. It also adopts many strange phrases from the Hebrew, as δύο δύο, προσέθετο πέμψαι, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω, σπλαγχνίζομαι, ἐξομολογοῦμαί τινι, ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά, &c.
D. It admits verbal forms and inflections, which are due to false analogy, such as εὕραμεν, οἴδατε, ἧξα, φάγομαι, ἔγνωκαν, καταλείποσαν, ἔφυγαν.
II. In syntax,
α. It aims at simplification by abandoning the dual; by making very sparing use of the ‘optative’ mood, especially in oratio obliqua; by considerably extending the use of the infinitive after verbs; by obliterating many of the finer particles.
β. It admits idioms which in Attic Greek are either very rare, or absolutely solœcistic, such as εἰ with the subjunctive, ὅταν and ἵνα with the present indicative, the omission of ἵνα after θέλω, &c.
γ. It frequently substitutes analytic for synthetic forms, as, for instance, by using εἰμι with a participle for the present tense, ἦν with a participle for the imperfect, ἔσομαι with the participle for the future. It helps out the force of compound verbs by repeating the preposition, as in ἀποκρύπτειν ἀπό, ἐσθίειν ἀπό, προσκυνεῖν ἐνώπιον. It substitutes ἑαυτὸν with the active, for the middle voice, e. g. ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτὸν for ἐταράξατο.
δ. The sentences are arranged more paratactically (i.e. joined by simple copulatives) than syntactically, i.e. they are not woven into compact sentences by subordinate clauses, conjunctions, &c.
Many of these peculiarities are due to the fact that (i.) Greek in the Christian era was in its decadence; (ii.) The New Testament writers learnt it for the most part orally and not from books.
It must not however be supposed that the Greek of the New Testament is, as it has been absurdly called, “a miserable patois.” On the contrary, it becomes in the hands of the Apostles and Evangelists an instrument of incomparable force, and gains in flexibility, energy, adaptability, and clearness what it loses in symmetry and grace.
The ‘critical notes’ at the head of each chapter are purposely few and simple. To have made them exhaustive or complete would have defeated their purpose. I have only noticed the various readings where they seemed to have any real interest or significance, and have paid no attention to minor variations often introduced from the parallel passages, and in no way affecting the sense. In some instances a variation is not recorded in the critical notes, but is for some special reason referred to in the general notes. As the Greek text here presented to the reader—for which the Rev. A. Carr has kindly made himself responsible—is founded on careful critical principles, and represents the consensus of the best editors, there was less necessity to notice minute and unimportant variations in the critical notes.
ABBREVIATIONS
Gr. Griesbach.
La. Lachmann.
Ti. Tischendorf.
W.H. Westcott and Hort.
LXX. Septuagint.
Vulg. Vulgate.
It. Old Latin Version (Itala).
Sah. Sahidic Version.
R. V. Revised Version.
A. V. Authorised Version.
Rec. The Textus Receptus.
EXCURSUS I
ON THE MEANING OF ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου IN Luke 2:49 (THE FIRST RECORDED WORDS OF JESUS)
In my Life of Christ (I. 78) I deliberately adopted the rendering of the English Version, but my view of the meaning has since been changed by a monograph kindly sent me by the Rev. Dr Field of Norwich, from which I here borrow some illustrations.
It might seem that the words lose something of their force and beauty by the adoption of the rendering “in my Father’s house;” but we must remember [1] that they are the words of a young and guileless Boy who was “subject unto His parents;” [2] that they must be interpreted with reference to their context. Joseph and His mother might have known that He would be “about His Father’s business” without knowing where He was. The answer had reference to His mother’s gentle reproach about their agonising search for Him. His answer is “Why this search? might you not have conjectured that I was in my Father’s House?” The other meaning would therefore be less appropriate. It is also less supported. We have no exact instance of ἐν τοῖς τινος εἶναι meaning “to be about a person’s business,” though we have something like it, e.g. 1 Timothy 4:15 ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, and the Latin “totus in illis.” This idiom seems however to imply an absolute absorption which is not here intended. If the word ὅλος had been added the sense and the idiom would indeed have been clear, and there would have been a distant analogy to the phrase employed in the story that when the young Alexander talked with the Persian Ambassadors he did not ask about the Golden Vine, the king’s dress, &c. but “was entirely occupied with the most important matters of the government” (ὅλος ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις ἧν τῆς ἡγεμονίας) so that the strangers were amazed (ἐκπεπλῆχθαι), Plut. II. 342. But had our Lord meant to say ‘Know ye not that I must be absorbed in my Father’s work?’ He would have expressed His meaning less ambiguously, and if He spoke in Aramaic those who recorded the sentence in Greek would hardly have left the meaning doubtful.—On the other hand “in my Father’s House” is the ordinary and natural meaning of the words.—Οἰκήμασι or δώμασι might be understood, but in fact the article alone—τὰ, ‘the things or belongings of’—was colloquially used in this sense; e. g. ᾆ τὰ Λύκωνος (Theocr. II. 76), ‘where Lycon’s house is;’ εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ‘into my brother’s’ (Lysias c. Eratosth. p. 195), ἐν τοῖς τοῦ δεσπότου ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη (Chrysost. Hom. LII. in Gen.), ‘wherever he may chance to go he must be in his Master’s house.’ Esther 7:9, ἐν τοῖς Ἀμὰν, ‘in Haman’s house’ (LXX[425]); Job 18:20, ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ ζήσονται ἕτεροι, ‘others shall live in his house.’ See too Genesis 41:51, LXX[426] In this interpretation the Vulgate, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Peshito Syriac concur, as do Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret.
But it may be asked ‘may we not admit both meanings, one as primary and one as secondary?’ This is the view adopted by Alford and others; but I agree with Dr Field in the remark that “it is certain that only one of the meanings was in the mind of the artless Child from whose lips they fell, and that that meaning” (so far as the mere significance of the words was concerned) “was rightly apprehended by those who heard them.”
EXCURSUS II
THE DOUBLE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST AS THE SON OF DAVID
The general facts are these:
(i) The genealogy of our Lord in St Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews.
The genealogy in St Luke ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. He spans the generations of mankind from the first Adam to the Second Adam, who was the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47).
(ii) The generations are introduced in St Matthew by the word “begat;” in St Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” Thus in St Matthew we have
Abraham begat Isaac,
And Isaac begat Jacob, &c.;
but in St Luke
Being the son (as was reputed) of Joseph,
(The son) of Eli
of Matthat, &c.
|(iii) St Matthew says that | |St Luke (merely reversing the order) |
| | |traces the line through |
|David begat Solomon | |David |
|| | || |
|Rehoboam | |Nathan |
|| | || |
|Abijah | |Mattathah |
|| | || |
|Asa | |Menna |
|| | || |
|Jehoshaphat | |Meleah |
|| | || |
|Jehoram [Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah omitted] | |Eliakim |
|| | || |
|Uzziah | |Jonan |
|| | || |
|Jotham | |Joseph |
|| | || |
|Ahax | |Judas |
|| | || |
|Hezekiah | |Symeon |
|| | || |
|Manasseh | |Levi |
|| | || |
|Amos | |Matthat |
|| | || |
|Josiah | |Jorim |
|| | || |
|Jeconiah and his brethren | |Eliezer |
|| | || |
|Shealtiel | |Jesus |
|| | || |
|Zerubbabel | |Er |
| | || |
| | |Elmadam |
| | || |
| | |Kosam |
| | || |
| | |Adaiah |
| | || |
| | |Melchi |
| | || |
| | |Neriah |
| | || |
| | |Shealtiel |
| | || |
| | |Zerubbabel |
| | |(in 1 Chronicles 3:19 we find Pedaiah, who|
| | |was perhaps the actual father; Shealtiel |
| | |may have adopted his nephew1#1 Some |
| | |authorities maintain that Zerubbabel was |
| | |the grandson of Shealtiel, and that we |
| | |have six sons of Shealtiel in 1 Chronicles|
| | |3:18.#) |
Thus St Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel where St Matthew only gives 15, and all the names except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel) are different.
|(iv) St Matthew says that | |St Luke traces the line through |
|Zerubbabel begat Abihud | |Zerubbabel—[Rhesa] |
|| | || |
|Eliakim | |Johanan (Hananiah, 1 Chronicles 3:19). |
|| | || |
|Asor | |Judah (Abihud of Matthew, Hodaiah of 1 |
|| | |Chronicles 3:24). |
|Zadok | || |
|| | |Joseph |
|Achim | || |
|| | |Shimei |
|Elihud | || |
|| | |Mattathiah |
|Eliezer | || |
|| | |Mahath |
|Matthan | || |
|| | |Nogah |
|Jacob | || |
|| | |Azaliah |
|Joseph | || |
| | |Nahum |
| | || |
| | |Amos |
| | || |
| | |Mattathiah |
| | || |
| | |Joseph |
| | || |
| | |Jannai |
| | || |
| | |Melchi |
| | || |
| | |Levi |
| | || |
| | |Matthat |
| | || |
| | |Eli |
| | || |
| | |Joseph |
Thus it will be seen that St Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, where St Matthew only gives 9, and all the names are different.
The two main difficulties then which we have to meet are
A. The difference in the number of the generations;
B. The difficulties in the dissimilarity of the names.
A. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious, because [1] it is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another; but also because [2] St Matthew has arranged his genealogies in an arbitrary numerical division of three tesseradecads[427]. Nothing was more common among the Jews than the adoption of this symmetrical method, at which they arrived by the free omission of generations, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted. Thus in 2 Chronicles 22:9 “son” stands for “grandson,” and Ezra (in Ezra 7:1-5) omits no less than seven steps in his own pedigree, and among them his own father,—which steps are preserved in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. St Luke’s genealogy is tacitly arranged in eleven sevens.
B. The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph.
One of the commonest ways of meeting the difficulty has been to suppose that St Luke is giving the genealogy not of Joseph but of Mary—the genealogy of Christ by actual birth, not by legal claim.
This solution (first suggested by Annius of Viterbo at the close of the 15th century), though still adopted by some learned men, must be rejected, [1] because there is no trace that the Jews recognised the genealogies of women as constituting a legal right for their sons; and [2] because it would do the strongest violence to the language of St Luke to make it mean ‘Being, as was reputed, the son of Joseph [but really the son of Mary, who was the daughter] of Eli, &c.
We must therefore regard it as certain that both genealogies are genealogies of Joseph adduced to prove that in the eye of the Jewish law Jesus was of the House of David. The question is not what we should have expected about the matter, but what is actually the case.
1. First then, how can Joseph be called in St Matthew the son of Jacob, in St Luke the son of Eli?
(α) An ancient explanation was that Matthan, a descendant of David in the line of Solomon (as given by St Matthew) was the husband of a woman named Estha, and became the father of Jacob; on his death his widow Estha married Melchi, a descendant of David in the line of Nathan (as given by St Luke), and had a son named Eli. Eli, it is said, died childless, and Jacob, his half-brother, in accordance with the law of levirate[428] marriages (Deuteronomy 25:5-6; Matthew 22:23-27), took his widow to wife, and became the father of Joseph. Thus
St Luke might naturally give the latter genealogy because it would be the one recognised by Romans, with whom the notion of legal as distinguished from natural sonship was peculiarly strong. This solution derives very great authority from the fact that it is preserved for us by Eusebius (H. E. I. 7) from a letter of Julius Africanus, a Christian writer who lived in Palestine in the third century, and who professed to derive it from private memoranda preserved by ‘the Desposyni’ or kindred of the Lord.
(β) But the difficulty about this view—not to mention the strange omission of Levi and Matthat, which may be possibly due to some transposition—is that St Matthew’s genealogy will then be partly legal (as in calling Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah) and partly natural (in calling Joseph the son of Jacob). But perhaps (since Jul. Africanus does not vouch for the exact details) there was so far a confusion that it was Jacob who was childless, and Eli who became by a levirate marriage the father of Joseph. If this be so, then St Matthew’s is throughout the legal, and St Luke’s throughout the natural genealogy. Even without the supposition of a levirate marriage, if Jacob were childless then Joseph, the son of his younger brother Eli, would become heir to his claims. The tradition mentioned may point in the direction of the true solution even if the details are inexact.
(γ) We may here add that though the Virgin’s genealogy is not given (οὐκ ἐγενεαλογήθη ἡ παρθένος, S. Chrys.), yet her Davidic descent is assumed by the sacred writers (Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30; Acts 13:23; Romans 1:3, &c.), and was in all probability involved in that of her husband. How this was we cannot say with certainty, but if we accept the tradition which has just been mentioned it is not impossible that Mary may have been a daughter of Eli (as is stated in an obscure Jewish legend, Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.) or of Jacob, and may have married her cousin Joseph jure agnationis. At any rate we have decisive and independent proof that the Davidic descent of our Lord was recognised by the Jews. They never attempted to avert the jealousy of the Romans about the royal descent of the Desposyni (Euseb. H. E. I. 7), and Rabbi Ulla (circ. 210) says that “Jesus was exceptionally treated because of royal descent” (T. B. Sanhedr. 43 a, Amsterdam ed., see Derenbourg, Palest. p. 349. But it is possible that the words mean ‘influential with the (Roman) government’).
2. We have now to explain why St Matthew says that Shealtiel (Salathiel) was the son of Jeconiah, while St Luke says that he was the son of Neriah.
The old suggestion that the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel of St Luke are different persons from those of St Matthew may be set aside at once. But the true answer seems to be that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) was either actually childless, as was so emphatically prophesied by Jeremiah 22:24-30, or that, at any rate, his children (if he ever had any, as seems possible from vs. 28; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19; and Jos. Antt. X. 11, § 2) died childless in Babylon. It is true that the word rendered ‘childless’ (עֲרִירִי) may mean ‘forlorn’ or ‘naked;’ but the other is the more natural meaning of the word, and so it was understood by the Jews, who however supposed that, after a long captivity, he repented and the curse was removed. Setting aside this mere conjecture, it seems probable that Jeconiah was, or became, absolutely childless, and that therefore in the 37th year of his captivity he adopted a son to preserve his race from extinction. His choice however was limited. Daniel and others of the seed royal were eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon (Daniel 1:3; 2 Kings 20:16), and Ishmael and others were excluded by their murder of Gedaliah; to say nothing of the fact that the royal line had been remorselessly mown down by Jehu and by Athaliah. He therefore adopted the seven sons of Neri, the twentieth from David in the line of Nathan. We seem to have an actual intimation of this in Zechariah 12:12, where “the family of Nathan apart” is commemorated as well as “the family of David apart” because of the splendid Messianic prerogative which they thus obtained. And this is remarkably confirmed by Rabbi Shimeon Ben Jochai in the Zohar, where he speaks of Nathan, the son of David, as the father of Messiah the Comforter (because Menachem, ‘comforter,’ stands numerically for 138, which is the numerical value of the letters of Tsemach, ‘the Branch’). Hence too Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan, is called the mother of the Messiah. (See Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. on Luke 1:31.)
The failure of the Messianic promise in the direct natural line of Solomon is no difficulty in the way of this hypothesis, since while the promise to David was absolute (2 Samuel 7:12) that to Solomon was conditional (1 Kings 9:4-5).
If these very simple and probable hypotheses be accepted no difficulty remains; and this at least is certain—that no error can be demonstrated. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of Kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St Matthew’s is a royal, St Luke’s a natural pedigree. It is a confirmation of this view that in Joseph’s private and real genealogy we find the names Joseph and Nathan recurring (with slight modifications like Matthat, &c.) no less than seven times. That there must be some solution of this kind is indeed self-evident, for if the desire had been to invent a genealogy no one would have neglected a genealogy deduced through a line of Kings.
3. i. We need only further notice that in vs. 27 the true translation probably is “the son of the Rhesa Zerubbabel.” Rhesa is not a proper name, but a Chaldee title meaning ‘Prince.’ Thus the head of the Captivity is always known by Jewish writers as the Resh Galootha.
ii. In vs. 32 we have only three generations—Boaz, Obed, Jesse—between Salmon and David; a decisive proof that the common chronology is wrong in supposing that more than four hundred years elapsed between the conquest of Canaan and David.
iii. In vs. 24 the Matthat is perhaps identical with the Matthan of Matthew 1:15; if so the line recorded by St Matthew may have failed at Eliezer, and Matthan, the lineal descendant of a younger branch, would then be his heir.
iv. In vs. 36 the Cainan (who must be distinguished from the Cainan of vs. 37) is possibly introduced by mistake. The name, though found in this place of the genealogy in the LXX[429], is not found in any Hebrew MS. of the O.T., nor in the Samaritan, Chaldee, and Syriac versions (Genesis 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24). It is omitted in the Codex Bezae (D), and there is some evidence that it was unknown to Irenaeus.
v. The difference between the two genealogies thus given without a word of explanation furnishes a strong probability that neither Evangelist had seen the work of the other.
The conclusions arrived at as probable may be thus summarized.
David’s line through Solomon failed in Jeconiah, who therefore adopted Shealtiel, the descendant of David’s line through Nathan.
(Shealtiel being also childless adopted Zerubbabel, son of his brother Pedaiah, 1 Chronicles 3:17-19.)
Zerubbabel’s grandson, Abihud (Matt.), Judah (Lk.), or Hodaiah (1 Chr.)—for the three names are only modifications of one another—had two sons, Eliakim (Matt.) and Joseph (Lk.).
Eliakim’s line failed in Eliezer; and thus Matthan or Matthat became his legal heir.
This Matthan had two sons, Jacob the father of Mary, and Eli the father of Joseph; and Jacob having no son adopted Joseph his heir and nephew.
It is true that these suggestions are not capable of rigid demonstration, but (α) they are entirely in accordance with Jewish customs; (β) there are independent reasons which shew that they are probable; (γ) no other hypotheses are adequate to account for the early existence of a double genealogy in Christian circles.
EXCURSUS III
ON PUTTING NEW (νέον) WINE INTO FRESH (καινοὺς) BOTTLES
It is usually considered a sufficient explanation of this passage to say that the ‘bottles’ of the ancients were skins, and not bottles of glass; and that whereas fermenting wine would burst old, worn, and suncracked skins, it would only distend new skins.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether such an explanation is tenable.
α. It is quite true that the ‘bottles’ of the East were skins, as the Greek word ἀσκὸς implies[430]. They are still made in the East exactly as they used to be made thousands of years ago, by skinning an animal from the neck, cutting off the head and legs, and drawing off the skin without making a slit in the belly. The legs and neck are then tightly tied and sewn up, and the skin with the hair on it is steeped in tannin and pitched at the sutures (Tristram, Nat. Hist. Bib., p. 92).
β. It is also quite true that ‘wine’ must here mean the juice of the grape which has not yet fermented, ‘must,’ as this explanation implies. For ‘still wine’—wine after fermentation—may be put in any bottles whether old or new. It has no tendency to burst the bottles that contain it.
γ. But unfermented wine which was intended to ferment certainly could not be kept in any kind of leather bottle whether old or new. The fermentation would split open the sutures of the leather, however new the bottle was.
δ. It seems, therefore, to be a very probable conclusion that our Lord is not thinking at all of fermented, intoxicating wine, but of ‘must’—the liquid which the Greeks called ἀεὶ γλεῦκος—tuns of which are kept for years in France, and in the East; which (as is here stated) improves by age; which is a rich and refreshing, but non-intoxicating beverage; and which might be kept with perfect safety in new leather bottles.
ε. Why, then, would it be unsafe to put the must in old bottles? Because if the old bottles had contained ‘wine’ in the ordinary sense—i.e. the fermented juice of the grape—or other materials, “minute portions of albuminoid matter would be left adhering to the skin, and receive yeast germs from the air, and keep them in readiness to set up fermentation in the new unfermented contents of the skin.… As soon as the unfermented grape-juice was introduced, the yeast germs would begin to grow in the sugar and to develop carbonic dioxide. If the must contained one-fifth sugar it would develop 47 times its volume of gas, and produce an enormous pressure which no bottle, new or old, could withstand.”
Unless, therefore, some other explanation can be produced, it is at least possible—if not most probable—that our Lord, in speaking of ‘wine,’ here means must.
Thus much is at any rate certain:—the conditions of our Lord’s comparison are not fulfilled either by fermented wine, or by grape-juice intended for fermentation. Fermented wine could be kept as well in old bottles as in new; and grape-juice intended to ferment would burst far stronger receptacles than the newest leathern bottle. See Job 32:19. “The rending force of the pent-up gas would burst even the strongest iron-bound cask.” When fermentation is intended, it goes on in the wine-vat.
Columella, an almost contemporary Latin writer, describing the then common process of preserving grape-juice in the form of unfermented must, lays the same stress on its being put into a new amphora.
EXCURSUS IV
ON THE MEANING OF ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΝ IN Luke 11:3
After the very learned and elaborate examination to which the word has been subjected by Bishop Lightfoot, On Revision 195–234, and Dr McClellan, New Testament 632–647, it will be sufficient here to touch on their conclusions.
This word was so rare that even learned Greek Fathers like Origen considered that it had been invented by the Evangelists and were uncertain as to its meaning. It is even still a dispute whether it has a temporal or a qualitative meaning, i.e. whether it means
i. bread for the day, in one of the subordinate senses of α. continual or β. future:—or
ii. for our subsistence, whether α. physical, or β. spiritual:—or again (giving to ἐπὶ the sense of ‘upon,’ i.e. ‘in addition to’) whether it meant
iii. beyond other substances, implying either α. ‘supersubstantial,’ i.e. preeminent, or β. consubstantial.
The meanings suggested under iii. may be at once dismissed as the artificial ‘afterthoughts of theology.’
The decision depends partly on the etymology. It has been thought that the word may be derived from ἐπὶ and ἰέναι, or from ἐπὶ and οὐσία.
It seems however an insuperable objection to the latter etymology that the word is ἐπιούσιος not ἐπούσιος; and with the etymology fall the meanings suggested under ii., i.e. bread for our physical, or spiritual, subsistence.
If then the word be derived from ἐπὶ and ἰέναι it comes either from ὁ ἐπιὼν χρόνος or ἡ ἐπιοῦσα ἡμέρα. In either case it would mean ‘bread for the coming day,’ i.e. for to-morrow, or for to-day; and Bishop Lightfoot brings some evidence to shew that this was the sense accepted by the Church till the more mystical sense was supported by Origen. He sums up his essay by the words “Thus the familiar rendering ‘daily’ which has prevailed uninterruptedly in the Western Church from the beginning is a fairly adequate representation of the original; nor indeed does the English language furnish any one word which would answer the purpose so well” (p. 234). On the other hand Dr McClellan, as the result of another exhaustive criticism, decides on the meaning “proper to the future world,” and would render it “needful,” an interpretation which he argues that “etymology, original tradition, sense and context unite in establishing” (p. 646). He would therefore take it in the sense of “Give us day by day our bread of Life Eternal.”
May we not however suppose that our Lord mentally referred to Proverbs 30:8, “Feed me with food convenient for me,” LXX[431] σύνταξον δέ μοι τὰ δέοντα καὶ τὰ αὐτάρκη? If so the simpler and more obvious meaning is to be preferred.
But I may observe in conclusion that practically the difference is nothing: for—in uttering the prayer—whichever sense the Christian may attach to the adjective he will certainly include the spiritual sense in using the word “bread” (John 6:51).
EXCURSUS V.
ON Luke 22:7
WAS THE LAST SUPPER AN ACTUAL PASSOVER?
The question whether, before the institution of the Lord’s Supper, our Lord and His Disciples ate the usual Jewish Passover—in other words, whether in the year of the Crucifixion the ordinary Jewish passover (Nisan 15) began on the evening of Thursday or on the evening of Friday—is a question which has been ably and voluminously debated, and respecting which eminent authorities have come to opposite conclusions.
1. From the Synoptists alone we should no doubt infer that the ordinary Paschal Feast was eaten by our Lord and His Disciples, as by all the Jews, on the evening of Thursday (Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:14-16; Luke 22:7; Luke 22:11-13; Luke 22:15).
2. On the other hand, St John uses language which seems quite as distinctly to imply that the Passover was not eaten till the next day (Luke 13:1, “before the Feast of the Passover;” 29, “those things that we have need of against the feast;” Luke 18:28, “they themselves went not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover”). He also calls the Sabbath (Saturday) a high day (a name given by the Jews to the first and last days of the octave of a feast) apparently because it was both a Sabbath and the first day of the Passover; and says (Luke 19:14) that Friday was “the preparation of the Passover.” Here the word used is παρασκευή (as in Luke 23:54). Now this word may no doubt merely mean ‘Friday,’ since every Friday was a preparation for the Sabbath; but it seems very difficult to believe that the expression means ‘Passover Friday.’ (See the note on Luke 23:54.)
3. Now since the language of St John seems to be perfectly explicit, and since it is impossible to explain away his expressions by any natural process—though no doubt they can be explained away by a certain amount of learned ingenuity—it seems more simple to accept his express statement, and to interpret thereby the less definite language of the Synoptists.
We may set aside many current explanations of the difficulty, such as that—
α. Two different days may have been observed in consequence of different astronomical calculations about the day.
or β. Some laxity as to the day may have been introduced by different explanations of “between the two evenings.”
or γ. The Jews in their hatred put off their Passover till the next evening.
or δ. St John, by “eating the Passover,” may have meant no more than eating the Chagigah or festive meal.
or ε. The supper described by St John is not the same as that described by the Synoptists.
or ζ. The Last Supper was an ordinary Passover, only it was eaten by anticipation.
Setting aside these and many other untenable views, it seems probable that the Last Supper was not the ordinary Jewish Paschal meal, but was eaten the evening before the ordinary Jewish Passover; and that the language of the Synoptists is perfectly consistent and explicable on the view that our Lord gave to His last Supper a Paschal character (“to eat this Passover,” or “this as a Passover,” Luke 22:15), and spoke of it to His disciples as their Passover. Hence had arisen in the Church the view that it actually was the Paschal meal—which St John silently corrects. The spread of this impression would be hastened by the fact that in any case Thursday was, in one sense, ‘the first day of unleavened bread,’ since on that day all leaven was carefully searched for that it might be removed.
When we adopt this conclusion—that the Last Supper was not the Paschal Feast itself, but intended to supersede and abrogate it—it is supported by a multitude of facts and allusions in the Synoptists themselves; e.g.
i. The occupations of the Friday on which Jesus was crucified shew no sign whatever of its having been a very solemn festival. The Jews kept their chief festival days with a scrupulosity almost as great as that with which they kept their Sabbaths. Yet on this Friday working, buying, selling, holding trials, executing criminals, bearing burdens, &c. is going on as usual. Everything tends to shew that the day was a common Friday, and that the Passover only began at sunset.
ii. The Sanhedrin had distinctly said that it would be both dangerous and impolitic to put Christ to death on the Feast day (Mark 14:2, and comp. Acts 12:4).
iii. Not a word is said in any of the Evangelists about the Lamb—the most important and essential element of the Paschal meal; nor of the bitter herbs; nor of the account given by the Chief Person present of the Institution of the Passover, &c.
Further than this, many arguments tend to shew that this Last Supper was not a Paschal meal; e.g.
α. Early Christian tradition—apparently down to the time of Chrysostom—distinguished between the Last Supper and the Passover. Hence the Eastern Church always uses leavened bread at the Eucharist, as did the Western Church down to the 9th century.
β. Jewish tradition—with no object in view—fixes the Death of Christ on the afternoon before the Passover (Erebh Pesach).
γ. The language of St Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 11:23) seems to imply that the Lord’s Supper was not the Passover, but a Feast destined to supersede it.
δ. If our Lord had eaten an actual Paschal meal the very evening before His death, the Jews might fairly have argued that He was not Himself the Paschal Lamb; whereas
ε. There was a peculiar symbolic fitness in the fact that He—the True Lamb—was offered at the very time when the Lamb which was but a type was being sacrificed.
For these and other reasons—more fully developed in the Life of Christ, pp. 471–483—I still hold that the Last Supper was not the actual Jewish Passover, but a quasi-Passover, a new and Christian Passover.
EXCURSUS VI
ON SECTS OF THE JEWS
In the time of our Lord the main Jewish sects were—the ESSENES, the SADDUCEES, and the PHARISEES.
The Herodians, mentioned in Mark 3:6; Mark 12:13; Matthew 22:16, were not so much a religious sect as a political party which accepted the rule of the Herods. Politically they were descended from the old Grecising apostates, for whom Jason proposed the title of Antiochians (2 Maccabees 4:9). They may be most briefly described as the antinational party, who wished the Jews to forget as much as possible their customs and aspirations, adopt cordial relations with Rome, and accept ‘Greek fashions and heathenish manners,’ 2 Maccabees 4:13-14. They seem to have been Sadducees in religion, and were closely connected with the powerful families which Herod the Great had introduced from Babylon and Egypt, and who at this time monopolised the High Priesthood among themselves. The Talmud connects them with the Boethusim, so called from Simon son of Boethus, whose daughter (named Mariamne) Herod the Great married. They had gone so far at one time as to attempt to represent Herod the Great to the Jews as the promised Messiah! (Tert. Praesc. 45.)
The ESSENES are not mentioned in the Gospels, nor is there any indication that Jesus ever came into contact with them. They were a small, exclusive, ascetic, isolated community, with whose discouragement of marriage, and withdrawal from all the active duties of life, our Lord could have had no sympathy. Their importance as a sect belongs to a somewhat later period of the Gospel History.
The SADDUCEES were the priestly-aristocratic party, who were in close alliance with the ruling powers. The name is probably derived from Tsedakah ‘righteousness,’ and was originally meant to distinguish them from the Separatist or Pharisaic party, which in their opinion was too narrow and exclusive. The names, like all party names, soon acquired an insulting force, and may be roughly illustrated by saying that the Sadducees were regarded as Rationalists and the Pharisees as Ritualists. In the time of our Lord the Sadducees had much political power, derived from their wealth, their offices, and their political connexions, but they had no popular following. Their grasping and avaricious spirit made them hateful to the people, and this hatred was specially felt towards their chief representatives—the family of Annas.
They rightly refused to recognise the extravagant importance attached by the Pharisees to the Oral Law; and they seem to have unduly depreciated the authority of the Hagiographa and the Prophets in comparison with that of Moses. It was this which led to their scepticism about the immortality of the soul and the existence of angels and spirits. Their worldliness and want of moral earnestness made them less useful than they might otherwise have been in counteracting the hypocritic externalism and frivolous scrupulosity of the Pharisees.
The name PHARISEES seems to have been derived from Perishoot, ‘separation.’ They were the national party, and were politically descended from the Chasidim, mentioned in 1 Maccabees 2:42; 1 Maccabees 7:13. No doubt many good and faithful men, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, existed in their body, but Jewish writers themselves admit, and the Talmud amply and in many passages confirms, the terrible charges brought against them by our Lord in His Great Denunciation (Matthew 23; see notes on Luke 11:42-54). Those charges were mainly against their greed, ambition, tyranny, and sacrifice of essential things to unimportant minutiae,—in one word, their arbitrary and excessive ceremonialism, which had led them to subordinate the spirit and even the letter of the Mosaic Law to their own Oral Law or Tradition of the Fathers. “Long prayers, and devouring of widows’ houses; flaming proselytism and subsequent moral neglect; rigorous stickling for the letter, boundless levity as to the spirit; high-sounding words as to the sanctity of oaths, and cunning reservations of casuistry; fidelity in trifles, gross neglect of essential principles; the mask of godliness without the reality; petty orthodoxy and artificial morals—such was Pharisaism.” “It was,” says Canon Mozley, “an active religion founded upon egotism”—religion allied with the pride of life in its most childish and empty forms. It was a “false goodness”—and therefore “an unrepentant type of evil.” “The Pharisaic conscience was a tame conscience—with a potent sway over mint, anise, and cumin, but no power over the heart.” And therefore the Pharisees were “the only class which Jesus cared publicly to expose.” See ‘Sermon on the Pharisees’ in Mozley’s Univ. Sermons, pp. 28–51.
Josephus (Antt. XVIII. 1, §§ 3, 4, XIII. 5, § 9, B. J. II. 8, § 14) gives some notices of these sects, but his account of them can by no means be exclusively trusted.
EXCURSUS VII
ILLUSTRATIONS OF ST LUKE DERIVED FROM THE TALMUD
A few only of the following illustrations—which will I think be found both curious and important—may be found in Schöttgen’s Horae Hebraicae. The majority of them are entirely new, and I have chiefly derived them from the yet unpublished Talmudic collections of Mr P. J. Hershon.
Luke 1:21. Marvelled that he tarried so long in the Temple
The Jews believed that catastrophes sometimes occurred, not only (as in the case of Heliodorus, 2 Maccabees 3:24) for instrusion into the Temple, but for any irregularity in it. See the story of the death of a (Sadducean) High Priest in Yoma, f. 19 b. Comp. Leviticus 16:13, “that he die not.”
Luke 2:25. Waiting for the consolation of Israel
Luke 2:38. That looked for redemption
“Ravah said, When a man is brought up for judgment (after death) he is asked … Hast thou been waiting for salvation?” (i.e. looking for the advent of the Messiah). Shabbath, f. 31 a.
Luke 2:41. His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover
In Mechilta f. 17 b the wife of Jonah is commended for going to the yearly feasts.
Luke 2:46. Both hearing them and asking them questions
I have shewn that this was entirely in accordance with Jewish custom: besides the self-attested instance of the young Josephus we find that “when Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Jehoshua Ben Korcha were seated in the debating room upon divans Rabbi Elazer Ben Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi [i.e. Judah the Holy] sat before them on the ground asking questions and starting objections. The other Rabbis exclaimed ‘We drink of their water’ (i.e. of their wisdom) ‘and they sit upon the ground!’ Seats were therefore brought in, and the two children were seated upon them.” Babha Metsia, f. 84 b.
Luke 6:35. Lend, hoping for nothing again
From Psalms 15:5 the Rabbis said that he who lent his money without usury was regarded as having kept the whole law. Shemoth Rabba, f. 130, 3.
Luke 7:50. Go in peace
Lit. ‘into peace’ (εἰς εἰρήνην), comp. Luke 2:29, “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace” (ἐν εἰρήνῃ).
“Rabh Laive Bar Chaitha said, In taking leave of a dying man one should say ‘Go in peace’ (beshalôm), and not ‘into peace’ (leshalôm), for God said to Abraham ‘Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace.’ In all other cases one should not say ‘Go in peace’ but ‘unto peace’; for David said to Absalom ‘Go in peace’ (2 Samuel 15:9), and he went and was hanged; but Jethro said to Moses (Exodus 4:18) ‘Go unto peace,’ and he went and prophesied.” Moed Katon, f. 29, 1. The same rule is given with the same reasons in Berachoth, f. 64 a.
Luke 10:31. He passed by on the other side
In Midrash Koheleth, f. 91 b, a beautiful story is told of the blessing earned by Abba Techama for carrying a sick man into a town, and going back (in spite of the Sabbath) to fetch his bundle. See Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.
Luke 10:34. Pouring in oil and wine
Speaking of circumcision, and the method adopted to heal the wound, we find the rule “If there is no mixed oil and wine ready each may be added separately” (Shabbath, f. 133 a).
As an additional instance of the extreme Sabbath scrupulosity among the Jews we may add the rest of the passage: “No dressing is to be prepared for it on the Sabbath, but a rag may be put on” (see John 7:22). “If the latter is not ready on the spot it may be fetched from other premises wrapped on the finger.” The latter rule is given to avoid the appearance of breaking the Sabbath by carrying the rag.
Luke 10:42. The good part
No doubt the use of the word μερὶς is a reference to the feast which Martha was preparing. The phrase and the metaphor are found in Hebrew literature. See Schöttgen ad loc.
Luke 12:19. Soul … take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry
So in Taanith, f. 11 a, “When the people is in trouble let no man say, I will go home, and eat, and drink, and peace be to thee, O my soul.”
Luke 12:53. The daughter in law against her mother in law
“In the generation when the Son of David will come daughters will stand up against their mothers, daughters in law against their mothers in law.” Sanhedrin, f. 97, 1.
Luke 13:14. In them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day
Thus we are told that thorough bathing was permitted on the Sabbath except in the Mediterranean, and the Dead Sea, because the waters of these seas were supposed to possess medicinal properties, and healing is not allowed on the Sabbath day. Shabbath, f. 109 a.
Luke 13:23. Are there few that be saved?
Some of the Rabbis answered this question in the affirmative, and Rabbi Shimeon Ben Jochai was so satisfied about his own righteousness as to say that if only two were saved, he and his son would be those two. Succa, f. 45 b.
Luke 14:8-11. On taking the lowest place
“Ben Azai said, Descend from thy place, and sit down two or three degrees lower. Let them rather bid thee go up higher than come down lower; as it is said, ‘For better it is that it should be said unto thee, Come up hither, than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen,’ Proverbs 25:7.” Abhoth of Rabbi Nathan, 2.
Luke 14:11. Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased
“Greatness flees from him who strives for it, but it follows him who flees from it,” Erubhin, f. 13 b. “Whoever abases himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, exalts him, and whoever exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, abases him.” Id. ib.
The latter coincidence compels the belief either that our Lord was here (as elsewhere) using a current Jewish proverb, or that the Talmudic writer, consciously or unconsciously, borrows from Him.
Luke 15:7. Who need no repentance
The Jews distinguished between two classes of good men; those who, like David, had repented after sin; and the ‘perfect just.’ Succa, f. 45 b.
Luke 16:8. The children of this world (or ‘age’)
‘The children of this age’ are opposed to ‘the children of the age to come,’ who in Berachoth, f. 4 b, are defined to be “those who to their evening prayers add prayers about (Israel’s) redemption.”
Luke 16:9. Into everlasting habitations (‘into the eternal tents’)
“When the wicked are burnt up, God makes a tent in which He hides the just, Psalms 27:5.” Siphra, f. 187.
Luke 16:22. Was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom
“‘This day,’ said Rabbi [Judah the Holy], ‘he sits in the bosom of Abraham,’ i.e. he died.” Kiddushin, f. 72 b.
Luke 17:6. Be thou plucked up by the root
In the famous story of Babha Metsia, f. 59 b, Rabbi Eliezer is said to have given this among other miraculous proofs that his rule (halacha) was right.
Luke 21:5. How it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts
“It is said, Whoever has not seen Herod’s temple, has never seen a beautiful structure in his life. How did he build it? Ravah replied, With white and green marble, so that it appeared in the distance like the waves of the sea.” Babha Bathra, f. 3 b.
Luke 21:7. When shall these things be?
“Rabbis Jochanan and Elazer both said, The present generation (i.e. after the destruction of Jerusalem), whose iniquities are hidden, have not been informed of the time of their restoration.” Yoma, f. 19, 2.
Luke 22:38. It is enough
Schöttgen compares this with the very frequent Rabbinic phrase דייר, used generally with a shade of indignation to stop useless remarks.
Luke 22:70. Art thou the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am
In the description of the death of Rabbi (Judah Hakkodesh, or the Holy, the compiler of the Mishna), we are told that Bar Cappara was commissioned by the other Rabbis to see whether he was dead or alive. He returned with his robe rent behind, and said, “The angels are victorious, and the holy ark is taken away.” “Is Rabbi dead?” asked they. “You have said it,” he answered. Kethubhoth, f. 103 b.
Luke 23:31. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
Although this exact proverb does not occur (apparently) in Jewish literature, there are others exceedingly like it, e.g. “Rabbi Ashi asked Bar Kippok what mourning he made on the death of Ravina. He replied, ‘If the flame has fallen among the cedars, what chance is there for the hyssop on the wall? If Leviathan is drawn up with a hook, what hope is there for little fish? If the net is thrown in flooding streams, what chance is there for stagnant pools?’” Moed Katon, f. 25 b. Comp. Jeremiah 12:5.
The proverb adduced by Schöttgen on 1 Corinthians 15:33, ‘Two dry logs and one green one; the dry burn up the green,’ seems to have no connexion with it.
01 Chapter 1
Introduction
Title. Εὐαγγέλιον. See Introd. ch. 1. The word has come to mean not the ‘good news’ in the abstract but the ‘written Gospel,’ a sense which it acquired before the end of the first century. But if the title of this Gospel came from the original writer it was used in its earlier and proper sense.
κατὰ Λουκᾶν. The preposition κατὰ implies the authorship of St Luke, just as ἡ καθ' Ἡρόδοτον ἱστορία in Diodorus means the history written by Herodotus, and ἡ κατὰ ΄ωϋσέα πεντάτευχος in Epiphanius means the Pentateuch written by Moses (Godet). Possibly however the expression originated from the currency of oral forms of teaching systematically adopted by different Apostles, which, when reduced to writing, were not represented as exclusive presentations of the Good Tidings, but as the Gospel in the particular form wherein it was preached by St Peter, St Matthew, or by other Apostles.
κατὰ Λουκᾶν. In א BF we have simply this title, but most MSS. add εὐαγγέλιον. Others have τὸ or ἐκ τοῦ, and some add ἅγιον before εὐαγγέλιον, or have ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λ. ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. The earliest titles are the simplest.
Verse 1
1. That it narrates as it were a new departure in God’s Revelation of Himself to man, after a cessation of miracle, prophecy and inspiration for 400 years.
Verses 1-4
Luke 1:1-4. INTRODUCTION
This brief preface is in several respects most interesting and important. Ewald rightly says that in its simplicity, brevity and modesty it is a model preface.
i. It is the only personal introduction to any historic book in the Bible except the Acts. It is specially valuable here as authenticating the first two chapters and shewing that Marcion’s excision of them was only due to his desire to suppress the true humanity of Christ, as his other mutilations of the Gospel (which made it “like a garment eaten by moths,” Epiphan.) were due to hostility to the Old Testament. See Mill’s Mythical Interpretation, p. 103.
ii. The style in which it is written is purer and more polished than that of the rest of the Gospel, though it is “the most literary of the Gospels.” It was the custom of antiquity to give special elaboration to the opening clauses of a great work, as we see in the Histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, &c. In the rest of the Gospel the style of the Evangelist is often largely modified by the documents of which he made such diligent use.
iii. It shews us in the simplest and most striking manner that the Divine Inspiration was in no way intended to supersede the exercise of human diligence and judgment.
iv. It proves how “many” early attempts to narrate the Life of Christ have perished. We may well suppose that they have only perished because the Four Evangelists were guided by “a grace of superintendency” to select and to record all that was most needful for us to know, and to preserve everything which was accurate and essential in the narratives (διηγήσεις) which had previously been published.
v. It furnishes us on the very threshold with a key to the aims of the Evangelist in the more systematic and comprehensive history which he is now led to write. With a modesty, which is also evinced by his self-suppression in the Acts of the Apostles, he here lays claim to nothing beyond methodical order and diligent research.
vi. We see at once from this preface the association of thought and expression between St Luke and his great Teacher. Several of the most marked words, ‘attempted,’ ‘most surely believed,’ ‘orally instructed,’ ‘certainly,’ are only found elsewhere in the letters and speeches of St Paul.
vii. It marks the difference between St Matthew and St Luke, shewing us that we have here a less Jewish and a more universal Gospel.
Verse 2
2. That to any one who believes in God there can therefore be no stumblingblock in the Angelic appearances and other marvellous incidents. They are thrown into the shade by the awfulness of the central fact that “The WORD became Flesh.”
Verse 3
3. That the holy and awestruck reticence of the Virgin accounts for the absence of their earlier publicity.
Verse 4
4. In the narrative itself we notice: α. A clearness of detail which marks veritable history (see the minute circumstances in Luke 1:5; Luke 1:39; Luke 1:63, Luke 2:36-37, &c.). β. A prevalence of numerical elements (sevens and threes), which shews that St Luke is here basing his record on an Aramaic document. Thus the whole Gospel of the Childhood falls into three large and seven smaller divisions. I. 1. The announcement of the birth of the Forerunner, Luke 1:5-25. 2. The announcement of the birth of Jesus, Luke 1:26-38. 3. The visit of Mary to Elizabeth, Luke 1:39-56. II. 1. The birth of John, Luke 1:57-80. 2. The birth of Jesus, Luke 2:1 to Luke 20:3. The Presentation in the Temple and Circumcision, Luke 2:21-40. III. The first visit of Jesus to the Temple—which completes the cycle by a seventh narrative, Luke 2:41-52. We shall see further that even the subordinate sections often fall into subsections of three. See Godet I. 84. Thus the first section is divided into α, the test of faith, Luke 1:5-7; β the promise, Luke 1:8-22; γ the fulfilment, Luke 1:23-25.
Ἡρώδου βασιλέως. Towards the close of the reign of Herod the Great. The true sceptre had departed from Judah. Herod was a mere Idumaean usurper imposed on the nation by the Romans. “Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit.” Tac. Hist. Luke 1:9.
τῆς Ἰουδαίας. Besides Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, his kingdom included the most important regions of Peraea (Jos. Antt. XV. 5, §§ 6, 7; B. J. I. 20, §§ 3, 4).
Ζαχαρίας. The common Jewish name Zachariah (2 Kings 14:29; Ezra 8:3; Ezra 8:11; Zechariah 1:1; 1 Maccabees 5:18, &c.) means ‘remembered by Jehovah.’ The Jews highly valued the distinction of priestly birth (Jos. Vit. I.). The notion that Zacharias was a High Priest and that his vision occurred on the great Day of Atonement is refuted by the single word ἔλαχε, “his lot was,” Luke 1:9.
ἐξ ἐφημερίας. The word ἐφημερία means first ‘a daily ministry’ (Heb. mishmereth) and then a class of the priesthood which exercised its functions for a week. It is used by the LXX[26] (as well as διαίρεσις) to render the Hebrew machaloketh. Josephus (Vit. I.) uses the less accurate term ἐφημερίς, and also πατρία (Antt. VII. 14. 7). Aaron had four sons, but the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, were struck dead for using strange fire in the sanctuary (Leviticus 10). From the two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, had sprung in the days of David twenty-four families, sixteen from the descendants of Eleazar, and eight from those of Ithamar. To these David distributes by lot the order of their service from week to week, each for eight days inclusively from Sabbath to Sabbath (1 Chronicles 24:1-19; 2 Chronicles 31:2). After the Babylonish exile only four of the twenty-four courses returned—a striking indication of the truth of the Jewish saying that those who returned from the exile were but like the chaff in comparison of the wheat. The four families of which the representatives returned were those of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim (Ezra 2:36-39). But the Jews concealed the heavy loss by subdividing these four families into twenty-four courses, to which they gave the original names, and this is alluded to in Nehemiah 13:30 (“I … appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business”). This arrangement continued till the fall of Jerusalem A.D. 70, at which time, on the ninth of the month Ab (Aug. 5), we are told that the course in waiting was that of Jehoiarib (Jos. Bell. Jud. VI. 5; Taanith, IV. 6; Derenbourg, Palest. p. 291). Reckoning back from this we find that the course of Abijah went out of office on Oct. 9, B.C. 6, A. U. C. 748 (but see Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 191). The reckoning of the date, either backwards from the Fall of Jerusalem, or forwards from the Reformation of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Maccabees 4:38), necessarily involves elements of uncertainty. See Wieseler, Synopsis, 141–145. The reader should bear in mind that our received era for the Birth of Christ (A. U. C. 753) was only fixed by the Abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, and is probably four years wrong.
Ἀβιά. 1 Chronicles 24:10, “the eighth [lot came forth] to Abijah.” This was not one of the four families which had returned, but the name was soon revived (Nehemiah 12:4). Josephus tells us that he himself enjoyed the high distinction of belonging by birth to the first of the twenty-four courses (Vit. I.).
καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ. ‘His wife was.’ See the critical note. This phrase like ἐγένετο (ויהי ), and ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις is Hebraic. The construction throughout is rather paratactical (sentences joined by καὶ) than syntactical (subordinate clauses).
Ἐλισάβετ. The same name as Elisheba (‘one whose oath is by God,’ comp. Jehoshebah, 2 Kings 11:2), the wife of Aaron, Exodus 6:23; mentioned by name according to Ibn Ezra as ‘the mother of the priesthood.’ John’s descent was priestly on both sides, as that of Jesus was royal.
Verse 5
5. Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. The elaborate style of the Preface is at once replaced by one of extreme directness and simplicity, full of Hebraic expressions; shewing that here St Luke begins to use, and probably to translate, some Aramaic document which had come into his hands. The remainder of this chapter is known as the Protevangelium—the Gospel History before the Birth of Christ. The sweetness and delicate reserve of the narrative, together with the incidents on which it dwells, have led to the not unreasonable conjecture that the Virgin Mary had written down some of those things which she long ‘kept in her heart.’ Something however of the ‘lofty and lyric beauty’ of the narrative must be due to St Luke, for his peculiar expressions occur even amid the Hebraic idioms. In this new material we may note:
Verses 5-25
5–25. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BIRTH OF THE FORERUNNER
Verse 6
6. δίκαιοι. The Hebrew Tsaddîkîm. It is one of the oldest terms of high praise among the Jews (Genesis 6:9; Genesis 7:1; Genesis 18:23-28. See Psalms 37:37; Ezekiel 18:5-19, &c.). It is used also of Joseph, Matthew 1:19; and is defined in the following words in the almost technical sense of strict legal observance which it had acquired since the days of the Maccabees. The true Jashar (upright man) was the ideal Jew. Thus Rashi calls the Book of Genesis ‘the book of the upright, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’
ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ. The Hebrew לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה which implies perfect sincerity, since hypocrisy is
“the only evil that walks
Invisible, except to God alone,
By His permissive will, through heaven and earth.”
See Genesis 7:1; Acts 8:21. For the word ἐνώπιον which is read in some MSS. see note on Luke 24:11.
ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν. The two words occur in the LXX[27] version of Genesis 26:5 (of Abraham) and 2 Chronicles 17:4 (of Jehoshaphat). ‘Commandments’ means the moral precepts of natural and revealed religion (Genesis 26:5; Deuteronomy 4:40; Romans 7:8-13). ‘Ordinances’ had come to be technically used of the ceremonial Law (Hebrews 9:1). The distinctions were not accurately kept, but the two words together would, to a pious Jew of that day, have included all the positive and negative precepts which later Rabbis said were 613 in number, namely 248 positive, and 365 negative. ‘To walk in the ordinances’ is a Hebraism (1 Kings 8:62; Deuteronomy 4:1; Psalms 119:93, &c.).
ἄμεμπτοι. ‘So that they were blameless.’ The word is used proleptically as in 1 Thessalonians 3:13. Blamelessness in external observances must not of course be confused with sinlessness.
Verse 7
7. καὶ οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τέκνον. This was regarded as a heavy misfortune, because it cut off all hope of the birth of the Messiah in that family. It was also regarded as often involving a moral reproach, and as being a punishment for sin. See Genesis 11:30; Genesis 18:11; Genesis 30:1-23; Exodus 23:26; Deuteronomy 7:14; Judges 13:2-3; 1 Samuel 1:6; 1 Samuel 1:27; Isaiah 47:9.
καθότι. This word in the N. T. is used only by St Luke 19:9; Acts 2:24. Classically it is better written καθ' ὅ τι.
προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. A Hebraism for baîm bayamîm Genesis 18:11, &c. The classical phrase would be τῇ ἡλικίᾳ or τὴν ἡλικίαν or τοῖς ἔτεσιν. A priest apparently might minister until any age, but Levites were partially superannuated at 50 (Numbers 3:1-39; Numbers 3:4; Numbers 8:25).
Verse 8
8. ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτόν. The priest who had the highest functions allotted to him was called ‘the chief of the course.’ There are said to have been some 20,000 priests in the days of Christ, and it could therefore never fall to the lot of the same priest twice to offer incense. Hence this would have been, apart from the vision, the most memorable day in the life of Zacharias.
Verse 9
9. ἱερατείας. The word is used by Aristotle, and in Hebrews 7:5, but the more common and classic form is ἱερωσύνης.
ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι. ‘He obtained by lot the duty of (entering and) burning incense.’ This was the loftiest and most coveted of priestly functions, Exodus 30:1-10; Numbers 16:1-40; Deuteronomy 33:10. King Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for trying to usurp it (2 Chronicles 26:18). Incense was a symbol of prayer (Psalms 141:2; Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 8:3-4), and Philo tells us that it was offered twice a day,—before the morning and after the evening sacrifice of a lamb. Incense was believed to atone, and the silent smoke of incense atoned for secret slander, T. B. Yoma, f. 44. 1; Wisdom of Solomon 18:21; Sirach 45:16. The ordinary construction after ἐγένετο would have been καὶ ἔλαχε as in Luke 5:1; Luke 5:12, Luke 9:51, &c., but St Luke more often omits the καί. The ἐγένετο is really pleonastic. Winer, E. T. p. 760. The τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι is governed by λαγχάνω as in ἔλαχε τοῦ βασιλεύειν. The word “custom” refers to the casting lots every day to see which priest was to burn the incense. The method of drawing lots is described in Yoma, f. 39. 1. Λαγχάνω may also be followed by the accusative as in Acts 1:17; 2 Peter 1:1. It was probably the morning offering at which Zacharias officiated.
εἰς τὸν ναόν. ‘Into the shrine or Holy Place.’ The golden altar of incense stood before the veil which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies (Exodus 30:6). The priest entered in white robes and with unsandalled feet with two attendants, who retired when they had made everything ready. The people waited outside in the Court of Israel praying in deep silence till the priest who was sacrificing the evening lamb at the great altar of Burnt Offering in the Court gave a signal to his colleague in the shrine, perhaps by the tinkling of a bell (Exodus 30:1-10; Psalms 141:2; Malachi 1:11). He then threw the incense on the fire of the golden altar, and its fragrant smoke rose with the prayers of the people. It was while performing this solemn function that John Hyrcanus also had received a divine intimation (Jos. Antt. XIII. 103). The word εἰσελθὼν means strictly that the lot had fallen to him after entering the Sanctuary; but the meaning is that the lot gave him the right “to enter and to burn the incense” (as it is rendered in the R. V[28]). The participle must be taken in close connection with the infinitive. Winer, p. 443.
Verse 10
10. πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος. This seems to shew that the vision took place either on a sabbath, or some great feast-day.
προσευχόμενον. The prayer of the people without was typified by the rising incense-smoke within. The analytic form ἦν προσευχόμενον for προσεύχετο slightly emphasises the delay. Comp. ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν ἦν καιομένη, Luke 24:32. The imperfect was no longer sufficient when the continuance needed to be emphasised. (Cf. ἦν διανεύων, 22, ἦν προσδοκῶν, 21). The Temple was mainly used for sacrifice. Prayer in the Tabernacle is only once mentioned in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 26:12-15). But the Temple had naturally become a ‘House of Prayer’ (Isaiah 56:7; Nehemiah 11:17; Matthew 21:13). One of the Rabbis went so far as to argue that prayer was a Rabbinic not a Mosaic institution! See Cohen, Jud. Gottesdienst, p. 186.
τοῦ θυμιάματος. The hour of “the incense.” More accurately it would be τῆς θυμιάσεως ‘of the burning of the incense.’
Verse 11
11. ἄγγελος. The ὤφθη implies an objective vision. St Luke dwells more than any of the Evangelists on the ministry of angels, Luke 1:26, Luke 2:9; Luke 2:13; Luke 2:21, Luke 12:8, Luke 15:10, Luke 16:22, Luke 22:43, Luke 24:4; Luke 24:23, and frequently in the Acts. Compare the visions at the births of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel.
ἐκ δεξιῶν. i.e. on the South side. It was the propitious side, so to speak, Mark 16:5; Matthew 25:33; and ib. Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr.
τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. A small movable table of acacia wood overlaid with gold. See Exodus 30:1-38; Exodus 37:25; 1 Kings 7:48. In Hebrews 9:4 the word may possibly mean ‘censer.’
Verse 12
12. ἐταράχθη. Such is the effect always recorded of these supernatural appearances. See Luke 2:9; Judges 13:22; Daniel 10:7-9; Ezekiel 1:28; Mark 16:8; Revelation 1:17.
ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ' αὐτόν. Comp. Genesis 15:12. The more classic construction would have been αὐτῷ. But as a language becomes older it gets less and less synthetic, and multiplies the epexegetic use of pronouns, prepositions, &c.
Verse 13
13. ΄ὴ φοβοῦ. The first utterance of the Dawn of the Gospel. St Luke begins with this angelic encouragement, and ends with the Apostles ‘blessing and praising God;’ see the beautiful remarks of Bengel ad loc.
εἰσηκούσθη ἡ δέησίς σου. ‘Thy supplication was heard.’ Δέησις implies a special prayer, and with the aorist verb shews that Zacharias had been just praying either to have a son, or at least that the days of the Messiah might come.
Ἰωάννην. Jehochanan, ‘the favour of Jehovah’ (comp. Genesis 17:19). It is the same name as Johanan, and in various forms was not uncommon, 1 Chronicles 3:24; 1 Chronicles 28:12, &c. Compare the German name Gotthold.
Verse 14
14. ἀγαλλίασις. ‘Exultation,’ Luke 1:44; Acts 2:46; Hebrews 1:9.
πολλοί. The Pharisees and leading Jews did not accept John’s baptism (Luke 7:30; Matthew 21:27), and his influence, except among a few, seems to have been shortlived.
“There burst he forth: ‘All ye whose hopes rely
On God, with me amid these deserts mourn,
Repent, repent, and from old errors turn!’
Who listened to his voice, obeyed his cry?—
Only the echoes which he made relent
Rang from their flinty caves Repent! repent!”
DRUMMOND.
Verse 15
15. μέγας ἐνώπιον Κυρίου. And therefore great indeed, since “we are as great as we are in God’s sight, and no greater.” See Luke 7:24-30; Matthew 11:11.
καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ. He shall be a Nazarite (Luke 7:33; Numbers 6:1-4); like Samson (Judges 13:2-7); Samuel (1 Samuel 1:12); and the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35:6). ‘Strong drink’ (σίκερα from Heb. Shakar ‘he is intoxicated’) was also forbidden to ministering priests, Leviticus 10:8. The term seems to have been specially applied to palm wine (Plin. Hist. Nat. XIV. 19), and all intoxicants (e.g. beer, &c.) which are not made of the juice of the grape. ‘Ne Syder,’ Wyclif.
πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται. The contrast between the false and hateful excitement of drunkenness and the divine exaltation of spiritual fervour is also found in Ephesians 5:18, “Be not drunk with wine … but be filled with the Spirit.” Comp. Acts 2:13.
ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. Compare 1 Samuel 1:11; Jeremiah 1:5.
Verse 16
16. πολλοὺς … ἐπιστρέψει. Ezekiel 3:19; Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3-6. The word for ‘turn’ is sometimes rendered ‘convert’ as in Luke 22:32, ‘when thou are converted.’ These words resume the thread of prophecy which had been broken for three centuries (Malachi 4:6).
Verse 17
17. αὐτὸς προελεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. He shall himself go before the Messiah. The αὐτοῦ is used in its most emphatic sense for Christ as in 1 John 2:12; 2 Peter 3:4. The English version should have added, “in His presence” (ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ).
ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἡλία. From the last words of Malachi (Luke 4:4-6, Luke 3:1), the Jews universally believed (as they do to this day) that Elijah would visibly return to earth as a herald of the Messiah. It required the explanation of our Lord to open the eyes of the Apostles on this subject. “This is Elias which was for to come,” Matthew 11:14. “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things … Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist,” Matthew 17:10-14. The resemblance was partly in external aspect (2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4); and partly in his mission of stern rebuke and invitation to repentance (1 Kings 18:21; 1 Kings 21:20).
ἐπιστρέψαι. The infinitive, expressive of a fact or consequence, almost resembling a purpose as in ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι, Matthew 2:2, where the supine would be used in Latin. Comp. ἤμισυ τοῦ στρατεύματος κατέλιπε φυλάττειν τὸ στρατόπεδον.
καρδίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα. ‘Of fathers to children;’ i.e. (as in the original meaning of Malachi,) to remedy disunion and restore family life. Kuinoel and others strangely follow St Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xx. 29) in explaining this to mean that John should make the Jews as pious as the Patriarchs were.
ἐν φρονήσει. (To walk) in or by wisdom. Φρόνησις (Ephesians 1:8) is the practical wisdom shewn by obedience. He shall turn them to wisdom so that they shall live in it. This is a constructio praegnans where a preposition of rest is placed after a verb of motion to imply the state produced. This ‘pregnant construction’ is one of the many signs of the agility of the Greek intellect. Compare
“Clarence, whom I indeed have cast in darkness.”
K. Rich. III. I. 3.
“And let the sounds of music | Creep in our ears.”
Merch. of Ven. Luke 1:1.
And in Latin In amicitia receptus, Sall. In aquam macerare, Cat. Brief Greek Syntax, § 89.
δικαίων. See Luke 1:6. The disobedient shall by his ministry begin to accept the δικαιώματα.
ἑτοιμάσαι … κατεσκευασμένον. The participle is proleptic—‘To prepare so that it may be ready.’ See Brief Greek Syntax, p. 82. (Comp. submersas obrues puppes, &c.) The reason why the R. V[29] renders this “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him” is because St Luke is fond of placing a word like ‘for the Lord’ between two others, with either or both of which it may be connected. See Acts 1:2 (Humphry, Rev. Version, p. 92).
Verse 18
18. ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι πρεσβύτης. The emphasis is on the I, which is therefore expressed. So “Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?” Genesis 17:17. But he had believed the original promise (Genesis 15:6) though he asked for a confirmation of it (Luke 1:8). “He believed … God who quickeneth the dead,” Romans 4:17.
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῆς. This is a Hebraism.
Verse 19
19. ἀποκριθείς. This aor. pass. part. is constantly used in the N. T. for the aor. mid. part. ἀποκρινάμενος. Veitch, Greek Verbs, p. 78, says that the earliest instance of this use is in Maco, a poet of the later comedy. In Hellenistic Greek the force of the middle voice is to some extent obliterated.
Γαβριήλ. Vir dei. The name means ‘Hero of God.’ He is also mentioned in Luke 1:26, and in Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21-23 (“idem Angelus, idem negotium,” Bengel). The only other Angel or Archangel (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Judges 1:9) named in Scripture is Michael (‘Who is like God?’ Daniel 10:21). In the Book of Enoch we read of ‘the four great Archangels (Sarîm or Princes) Michael, Uriel, Raphael, Gabriel,’ and so too in Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, IV. In Tobit 12:15, “I am Raphael (one whom God heals), one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” Since Michael was despatched on messages of wrath and Gabriel on messages of mercy, the Jews had the beautiful saying that “Gabriel flew with two wings, but Michael with only one.”
ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἀπεστάλην λαλῆσαι πρὸς σὲ. He was thus one of the “Angels of the Presence” (Isaiah 63:9; cf. Matthew 18:10).
“One of the Seven
Who in God’s presence, nearest to His throne,
Stand ready at command, and are His eyes
That run through all the heavens, and down to the earth
Bear His swift errands over moist and dry,
O’er sea and land.”
MILTON, Paradise Lost, III. 650.
See Revelation 8:2; Daniel 7:10; 1 Kings 22:19. The supposed resemblance to the Amshaspands in the Zendavesta is shewn by Dr Mill to be purely superficial. Mythical Interpretation, p. 127.
εὐαγγελίσασθαί σοι ταῦτα. The word εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ‘to preach the Gospel,’ is common in St Luke and St Paul, but elsewhere is not often found. It comes from the LXX[30] (Isaiah 40:9; Isaiah 61:1). In the R. V[31] it is rendered “to bring thee these good tidings,” and εὐαγγέλιον is “good,” rather than “glad tidings.” It would be an anachronism here to render it by “preach the Gospel.”
Verse 20
20. ἰδού. The word is used to call attention to something notable or surprising, and is specially frequent in St Matthew and St Luke (הִנֵּה, Isaiah 7:14 ). It is often a mere lively form of transition.
σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι. ‘Thou shall be silent’ (not ‘dumb,’ which would be κωφός). The μὴ is used to indicate the thought of his friends that he was unable to speak. St Luke similarly puts a participle with μὴ after an adjective in Acts 13:14, ἔσῃ τυφλὸς μὴ βλέπων. See a somewhat different explanation in Winer, p. 610, and the note on Luke 4:42. This positive and negative way of expressing the same thing is common, especially in Hebrew literature, 2 Samuel 14:5; Exodus 21:11; Isaiah 38:1; Lamentations 3:2, &c.; but it is also found in classic writers. Zacharias receives the sign for which he had unfaithfully asked (Matthew 12:38), but it comes in the form of a punishment. Comp. Daniel 10:15.
οἵτινες. The pronoun is qualitative, and gives the reason for the punishment. ‘Thou didst not believe my words, which are of such a kind that,’ &c.
εἰς τὸν καιρὸν αὐτῶν. “I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life,” Genesis 18:10, i.e. after the usual nine months. Εἰς τὸν καιρὸν is a classical idiom by constructio praegnans for. ἐν τῷ καιρῷ. It means that the angel’s words shall await the due time for their accomplishment. Comp. εἰς τὸ μέλλον in Luke 13:9.
Verse 21
21. ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτόν. While he was lingering they wondered at his delay. Priests never tarried in the awful precincts of the shrine longer than was absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of their duties from feelings of holy fear. Comp. Leviticus 16:13, “that he die not.” Yoma, f. 52. 2.) See Excursus VII.
Verse 22
22. ἐξελθὼν δέ. The moment of the priest’s reappearance from before the ever-burning golden candlestick, and the veil which hid the Holiest Place, was one which powerfully affected the Jewish imagination. See Sirach 50:5-21.
οὐκ ἐδύνατο λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς. They were waiting in the Court to be dismissed with the usual blessing, which is said to have been generally pronounced by the other priest. Numbers 6:23-26. “Then he” (the High Priest Simon) “went down and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to rejoice in His name. And they bowed themselves down to worship the second time, that they might receive a blessing from the Most High.” Sirach 50:20.
ὀπτασίαν. The classical term is ὄψιν. The word is used especially of the most vivid and ‘objective’ appearances, Luke 24:23; Acts 26:19; 2 Corinthians 12:1; Daniel 9:23.
αὐτὸς ἦν διανεύων αὐτοῖς. ‘He himself continued making signs to them.’
διέμενεν κωφός. The word κωφὸς means actual ‘dumbness.’ In Luke 1:20 the angel uses σιωπῶν, because, though Zachariah appeared to the people to be ‘dumb,’ his power of speech was only temporarily arrested. “Credat Judaeus ut loqui possit” (let the Jew believe that he may be able to speak) says St Augustine. Origen, Ambrose, and Isidore, see in the speechless priest vainly endeavouring to bless the people, a fine image of the Law reduced to silence before the first announcement of the Gospel. The scene might stand for an allegorical representation of the thesis so powerfully worked out in the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Hebrews 8:13). Zacharias became dumb, and Saul of Tarsus blind, for a time. “Praeludium legis ceremonialis finiendae Christo veniente.” Bengel.
Verse 23
23. ἐπλήσθησαν. The same verb occurs in 57, Luke 2:6; Luke 2:21, &c.
αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ. The word λειτουργία is derived from λεώς, ἔργον, a service done for the people. The time of a priest’s “liturgy” lasted from the evening of one Sabbath to the morning of the next. 2 Kings 11:5.
εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. The simplicity of the narrative is marked by the recurrence of the phrase Luke 1:39; Luke 1:56.
Verse 24
24. περιέκρυβεν ἑαυτήν. ἔκρυβον is a late form of the 2nd aor. of κρύπτω (as though from κρύβω) found also in Plutarch, &c. The compound verb implies the complete seclusion. The periphrastic form used for the middle marks the decaying stage of a synthetic language. We can only conjecture Elizabeth’s motive. It may have been devotional; or precautionary; or she may merely have wished out of deep modesty to avoid as long as possible the idle comments and surmises of her neighbours. In any case there is in the incident an exquisite verisimilitude.
Verse 25
25. ἐπεῖδεν. Our versions understand μοι. The αἶς is repeated after ἡμέραις without repeating the preposition. Ἐφοράω implies providential care.
ἀφελεῖν ὄνειδός μου. So Rachel, when she bare a son, said, “God hath taken away my reproach,” Genesis 30:23. See Isaiah 4:1; Hosea 9:11; 1 Samuel 1:6-10. Yet the days were coming when to be childless would be regarded by Jewish mothers as a blessing. See Luke 23:29. The infinitive is here explanatory.
ἐν ἀνθρώποις. The ‘reproach’ was not real, but merely existed in human judgment. See Luke 1:36.
Verse 26
26. Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ. i.e. after the vision of Zachariah. This is the only passage which indicates the age of John the Baptist, as half a year older than our Lord. The reader will observe how this, like most of the other sections of this narrative, falls naturally into three subsections: α. The Salutation, 26–29. β. The Message, 30–33. γ. The Meek Acceptance, 34–38.
τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Thus began to be fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2. Galilee of the Gentiles (Gelîl haggoyîm), one of the four great Roman divisions of Palestine, was north of Judaea and Samaria, west of Peraea, and comprised the territories of Zebulun, Naphtali, Issachar and Asher (Matthew 4:13). Josephus describes it as rich in trees and pastures, strong, populous, containing 204 towns, of which the least had 15,000 inhabitants, and occupied by a hardy and warlike race, Bell. Jud. III. 3; Vit. 45, 52. See Map, and note on Luke 3:2.
ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρέτ. The expression shews that St Luke is writing for those who were unfamiliar with Palestine. See on Luke 2:51. Keim (Gesch. Jesu, I. 319) argues in favour of the form Nazara, i. from the adjectives Ναζωραῖος, Ναζαρηνός; ii. from the phrase ἀπὸ Ναζάρων in Eusebius; iii. from the modern name En-Nezirah. But there can be little doubt of the reading here, though Νάζαρα is read by some MSS. in Luke 4:16. Nazareth and Nazara may both have been in use, like Ramath and Rama. The derivation of the name is disputed, but it is probably derived from Netser, ‘a branch.’ For a description of the village see Life of Christ, I. 53.
Verses 26-38
26–38. THE ANNUNCIATION
Verse 27
27. παρθένον. Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 31:22. The many miraculous and glorifying legends which soon began to gather round the name of Mary in the Apocryphal Gospels are utterly unknown to Scripture.
ἐμνηστενμένην. ‘Betrothed.’ The betrothal, which is in the East a ceremony of the deepest importance, usually took place a year before the marriage. The ‘espoused’ of the A. V[32] means ‘betrothed.’
Ἰωσήφ, ἐξ οἴκου Δαυείδ. We are nowhere told that Mary was of the house of David, for both the genealogies of the Gospels are genealogies of Joseph. See Excursus ii. The fact that it seems always to be assumed that Mary also was of the lineage of David (Luke 1:32), makes it probable that the genealogy of Mary is involved in that of Joseph, and that they were first cousins.
΄αριάμ. The same name as Miriam and Marah, Exodus 15:20; Ruth 1:20. Her early residence at Nazareth, before the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, is narrated by St Luke alone. It does not however follow that St Matthew was unaware of it (Matthew 13:55-56). After the narrative of the Nativity she is very rarely mentioned. The Ave Maria of the Roman Catholics did not assume its present form till the 16th century.
Verse 28
28. κεχαριτωμένη. Marg. “graciously accepted” or “much graced.” Literally, having been graced (by God). Ephesians 1:6, “accepted.” Not as in the Vulgate “Gratiâ plena” but “gratiâ cumulata.” “Not a mother of grace, but a daughter.” Bengel. The χαῖρε κεχ. is a pleasing paronomasia. The verb only occurs again in Ephesians 1:6.
[εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν.] These words are of dubious authenticity, being omitted by B and various versions. They may have been added from Luke 1:42. With this address comp. Judges 6:12.
Verse 29
29. ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη. ‘But she was greatly troubled at the saying.’
ποταπός. ‘Of what kind.’ The salutation was to her not only astonishing, but enigmatical.
Verse 31
31. Ἰησοῦν. The name involves the whole Gospel. See Life of Christ, I. 18, 19. It is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Jehoshua (Numbers 13:8), Joshua, Jeshua (Zechariah 3:1), which means ‘The salvation of Jehovah’ (Philo, I. 597). It was one of the commonest Jewish names. ‘Jesus’ is used for Joshua (to the great confusion of English readers) in Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8. St Matthew (Matthew 1:21) explains the reason of the name—“for He Himself shall save His people from their sins.” On Joshua as a type of Christ see Pearson On the Creed, Art. ii.
Verse 32
32. κληθήσεται. i.e. shall be. The best comment on this verse is furnished by the passages of Scripture in which we find the same prophecy (Micah 4:7; Micah 5:4; 2 Samuel 7:12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 16:5; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:24; Daniel 7:14; Hosea 3:5; Psalms 132:11) and its fulfilment (Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 22:16).
ὑψίστου. Without the article (anarthrous), as in Luke 6:35, being here a synonym of θεός.
τὸν θρόνον Δαυεὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, according to Psalms 132:11.
Verse 33
33. βασιλεύσει … εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Daniel 2:44, “a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … it shall stand for ever.” (Comp. Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 7:27; Micah 4:7.) “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (Psalms 45:6; Hebrews 1:8). “He shall reign for ever and ever,” Revelation 11:15. In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 the allusion is only to Christ’s mediatorial kingdom,—His earthly kingdom till the end of conflict.
Verse 34
34. Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο; Mary does not doubt the fact as Zacharias had done; she only inquires as to the mode of accomplishment. The village maiden amid her humble daily duties shews a more ready faith in a far more startling message than the aged priest in the Holy Place amid the Incense. Inquirendo dixit non desperando. Aug.
Verse 35
35. Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. The phrase is anarthrous (i.e. the article is omitted) because ‘Holy Spirit’ is here a proper name.
ἐπισκιάσει σοι, as with the Shechinah and Cloud of Glory (see on Luke 2:9, Luke 9:34). See the treatise on the Shechinah in Meuschen, pp. 701–739. On the high theological mystery see Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3. See on Luke 2:9.
τὸ ἅγιον. “Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26. “Who did no sin,” 1 Peter 2:22.
γεννώμενον. ‘Which is in thy womb.’ Galatians 4:4, “born of a woman.”
υἱὸς θεοῦ. This title is given to our Lord by almost every one of the sacred writers in the N. T. and in a multitude of passages.
Verse 36
36. ἡ συγγενής σου. “thy kinswoman.” What the actual relationship was we do not know. It is a mistake to infer positively from this, as Ewald does, that Mary too was of the tribe of Levi, for except in the case of heiresses there was free intermarriage between the tribes (Exodus 6:23; Judges 17:7; Philo De Monarch. II. 11; Jos. Vit. 1). At the same time the tradition of the Aaronic descent of Mary is as old as the “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs” in the second century. The reading συγγενὶς is a later form of the word. Γήρει is the Ionic form of the dative of γῆρας. Hellenistic Greek contained forms drawn from various dialects. See Winer, p. 73.
Verse 37
37. οὐκ … πᾶν ῥῆμα. Ῥῆμα means word or fact (דבר ). The οὐ negatives the verb (every fact shall be possible). Cf. Matthew 24:22, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ; Romans 3:20; Acts 10:14, &c. The idiom is Hebraic (Exodus 12:16; Exodus 12:44, &c. LXX[33]) See Winer, p. 215. It is a common idiom in emphatic gnomes, &c. The so-called ‘laws of nature’ cannot bind God, for Nature, in its highest use, is but a reverent synonym for God, and the laws of nature, so far from being limitations which He cannot break, are only gossamer-threads which He weaves at His will. For the thought see Genesis 18:14; Matthew 19:26. “There is nothing too hard for thee,” Jeremiah 32:17.
παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. (א BDL) on the part of (lit. from) God. Romans 2:11 we have παρὰ θεῷ, with God.
Verse 38
38. δούλη. ‘Female slave,’ stronger than handmaid.
γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. The use of the aorist optative delicately implies that the time of the fulfilment is left in God’s hands. The thoughts of the Virgin Mary seem to have found their most natural utterance in the phrases of Scripture. 1 Samuel 3:18, “If it be the Lord, let Him do what seemeth Him good.” For Mary too was aware that her high destiny must be mingled with anguish. She repeats the word ῥῆμα which the angel has just used.
καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος. We can best appreciate the noble simplicity of truthfulness by comparing this narrative of the Annunciation with the diffuse inflation of the Apocryphal Gospels. Take for instance such passages as these from one of the least extravagant of them, ‘The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary.’ “The Angel Gabriel was sent to her … to explain to her the method or order of the Conception. At length having entered unto her, he filled the chamber where she abode with an immense light, and saluting her most courteously said, ‘Hail Mary! most acceptable Virgin of the Lord! Virgin full of grace … blessed art thou before all women; blessed art thou before all men hitherto born.’ But the Virgin, who already knew the countenance of angels and was not unused to heavenly light, was neither terrified by the angelic vision nor stupefied by the greatness of the light, but was troubled at his word alone; and began to think what that salutation so unwonted could be, or what it portended, or what end it could have. But the angel, divinely inspired and counteracting this thought, said, ‘Fear not, Mary, as though I meant something contrary to thy chastity by this salutation; for’ &c., &c.” The reader will observe at once the artificiality, the tasteless amplifications, the want of reticence,—all the marks which separate truthful narrative from elaborate fiction. (See B. H. Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels, p. 93.)
Verse 39
39. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις. ‘in these days.’ Probably within a month of the Annunciation. The ‘those days’ of the A. V[34] would require ἐκείναις. The ταύταις is more graphic.
εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν. Into the hill-district (or highlands) sub. χώραν. Palestine west of the Jordan lies in four parallel lines of very different formation. 1. The coast. 2. The Shephçlah, or maritime plain, broken only by the spur of Carmel. 3. The Har or Hill country,—the mass of low rounded hills which formed the main part of the Roman provinces of Judaea and Samaria south of the intervening plain of Esdraelon, and of Galilee north of it; and 4. The Ghôr or deep dint of the Jordan Valley. See Deuteronomy 1:7, “in the plain (Arabah), in the hills (Har), in the vale (Shephçlah), and in the south (Negeb), and by the sea-side (Chooph hayyâm).” (Joshua 9:1; Judges 5:17.) The specific meaning of ‘hill country’ is the elevated district of Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim. (Genesis 14:10; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 9:1; Joshua 10:40; Joshua 11:16.)
μετὰ σπουδῆς. The same notion of haste is involved in the aorist participle ‘ἀναστᾶσα’ rising up. As a betrothed virgin she would live without seeing her future husband. When however a few weeks sufficed to shew her condition, the female friends about her would be sure to make it known to Joseph. Then would occur the enquiries and suspicions, so agonising to a pure maiden, which are alluded to by St Matthew (Matthew 1:18-25). After the dream which vindicated her innocence we can understand the “haste” with which she would fly to the sympathy of her holy and aged kinswoman and seek for peace in the seclusion of the priestly home. Nothing but the peculiarity of her condition could have permitted the violation of Jewish custom involved in the journey of a betrothed virgin. Were it not for the incidents recorded by St Matthew we should be wholly unable to account for this expression. Its naturalness under the circumstances is an undesigned coincidence.
εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα. See 2 Chronicles 25:28, where however the reading of the LXX[35] is doubtful. Similarly, Nazareth is described as “a city of Galilee.” The name of the city is not given. Had the home of Zacharias been at Hebron (Joshua 21:11) it would probably have been mentioned. Reland (Palest. p. 870) ingeniously conjectures that we should read Jutta, which was in the hill country (Joshua 15:55) and was one of the cities of Judah which were assigned to the priests (ib. Luke 21:9; Luke 21:16). We can hardly venture to alter the reading, but as Juttah was only a large village (Euseb. Onomast. s. v.) and is not mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:57-59 it may have been the home of Zacharias, and yet the actual name may easily have been omitted as obscure. Tradition names Ain Karim. ‘Judah’ is here used for Judaea (Matthew 2:6). See Robinson, Bibl. Researches II. 417.
Verses 39-45
39–45. THE VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH
Verse 41
41. ἐσκίρτησεν. The same word is applied to unborn babes in Genesis 25:22, LXX[36]
Verse 42
42. ἀνεφώνησεν. Vulg[37] exclamavit.
κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ. ‘with a great cry.’ The reading φωνῇ, voice, ACD, &c. is a commoner but weaker phrase. Ἀνεφώνησεν is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N. T.
Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν. i.e. preeminently blessed. (Cf. “fairest among women,” Song of Solomon 1:8.) Similar expressions are used of Ruth (Ruth 3:10), and, on a far lower level of meaning, of Jael (Judges 5:24), and of Judith. “All the women of Israel blessed her,” Judges 15:12. In the latter instances the blessing is pronounced by women, but here the word means ‘blessed by God.’ It is in fact a sort of Hebrew superlative, but is not unparalleled in Greek. Comp. Eur. Alc. 473, ὦ φίλα γυναικῶν. Pind. Nem. iii. 80, αἰετὸς ὠκὺς ἐν πετανοῖς (Winer p. 308).
ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου. Genesis 30:2; Lamentations 2:20.
Verse 43
43. ἵνα ἔλθῃ. This would have been expressed in classical Greek by the acc. and infinitive, and Hermann goes so far as to call it “labantis linguae quaedam incuria.” This use of ἵνα has become universal in modern Greek (να).
ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου. The words shew a remarkable degree of divine illumination in the mind of Elizabeth. See John 20:28; John 13:13. Yet she does not address Mary as Domina, but as ‘mater Domini’ (Bengel); and such expressions as Theotokos and ‘Mother of God’ are unknown to Scripture.
Verse 44
44. γάρ. This assigns the ground of her recognition of Mary as Mother of the Messiah.
ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει. ‘In exultation.’ To apply this incident to inferences as to the salvation of infants was one of the strange perversions to which almost every passage of Scripture has been rendered liable.
Verse 45
45. μακαρία ἡ πιστεύσασα. Perhaps Elizabeth had in mind the affliction which had followed her husband’s doubt. Comp. John 20:29.
ὅτι ἔσται τελείωσις. The words may also mean ‘she that believed that there shall be,’ &c.
Verse 46
46. Καὶ εἶπεν ΄αριάμ. The use of the calm word εἶπεν to describe the submissive and meek utterance of Mary, after the wild ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ (Luke 1:42) of Elizabeth is one of the many exquisite touches alike of subjective and objective truthfulness in the narrative. The one accords well with the mother of John, the other with the mother of Jesus. This chapter is remarkable for preserving a record of two inspired hymns—the Magnificat and the Benedictus—which have been used for more than a thousand years in the public services of Christendom. The Magnificat first appears in the office of Lauds in the rule of St Caesarius of Arles, A.D. 507. (Blunt, Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 33.) It is so full of Hebraisms as almost to form a mosaic of quotations from the Old Testament, and it is closely analogous to the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10). It may also be compared with the Hymn of Judith (Judith 16:1-17). But it is animated by a new, a far gentler and a more exalted spirit, and is specially precious as forming a link of continuity between the eucharistic poetry of the Old and New Dispensation. (See Bp Wordsworth ad loc.) It falls into four strophes, of which each contains three verses.
΄εγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν κύριον. Comp. 1 Samuel 2:1-10; Psalms 34:2-3. The soul (ψυχὴ) is the natural life with all its affections and emotions; the spirit (πνεῦμα) is the diviner and loftier region of our being, 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 2:10.
Verses 46-56
46–56. THE MAGNIFICAT
Verse 47
47. ἠγαλλίασεν. ‘exults’. In the original it is the general or gnomic aorist.
ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου. Isaiah 45:21, “a just God and a Saviour.” Comp. Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 25:9. The expression is also found in the later Epistles of St Paul; “God our Saviour,” 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 3:4.
Verse 48
48. ἐπέβλεψεν. ‘He looked upon’.
τὴν ταπείνωσιν. So Hagar (Genesis 16:11) and Hannah (1 Samuel 1:11; cf. Psalms 138:6; Psalms 102:17). The word may be rendered ‘humiliation’, Acts 8:33; Isaiah 1:9-10. ‘Humility’ is ταπεινότης. The reader will notice in this hymn more than one anticipation of the Beatitudes.
μακαριοῦσίν με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί. “Blessed is the womb that bare Thee,” Luke 11:27. “Leah said, The daughters will call me blessed,” Genesis 30:13; Psalms 72:17. We cannot but wonder at the faith of the despised and persecuted Virgin of Nazareth, whose inspired anticipations have been so amply fulfilled.
Verse 49
49. μεγάλα. gedolôth, Psalms 71:21; Psalms 126:3.
ὁ δυνατός. El Shaddai, Job 8:3; also Gibbôr, Psalms 24:8. See Pearson On the Creed, Art. i.
ἅγιον τὸ ἔνομα αὐτοῦ. Psalms 111:9; “Thou only art holy,” Revelation 15:4. Shem, ‘name,’ is often a reverent periphrasis in Hebrew for God Himself. Leviticus 24:11; Leviticus 24:16; Psalms 91:14; 2 Chronicles 6:20, &c.
Verse 50
50. τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ. Psalms 89:2-3 and passim.
εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς. ‘unto generations and generations’; ledôr vadôr, Genesis 17:9, &c. See Deuteronomy 7:9. “Et nati natorum et qui nascentur ab illis.” Virg.
Verse 51
51. ἐποίησεν κράτος. A Hebraism. Psalms 118:15, &c.
ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ. “Thou hast a mighty arm,” Psalms 89:13. The nearest parallel to the remainder of the verse is Job 5:12.
Verse 52
52. καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων. ‘He puts down potentates from thrones.’ The aorists throughout are gnomic, i.e. they do not express single but normal acts. Winer, indeed, denies this gnomic use of the aorist—to express what is wont to be done—in the N. T. (Gram., p. 346); but his explanation that the aorists represent the rapid succession of (normal) facts, comes to the same thing. See a marked instance in James 1:11 ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος … καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον. Hence Bleek renders these aorists by presents which is also the English way of expressing the gnomic aorist. Thus πολλὰ παρὰ γνώμην ἔπεσε means ‘many things happen unexpectedly.’ The thought is common throughout the Bible, e.g. Luke 18:14; Daniel 4:30; 1 Samuel 2:6-10; Psalms 113:6-8; 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. The ancients noticed the fact (κύκλος τῶν ἀνθρωπηΐων ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων, Hdt. I. 207; “Irus et est subito qui modo Croesus erat,” Ov. Trist. III. vii. 41), but did not draw the true lessons from it. With the general thought compare Wisdom of Solomon 5:23, “Ill dealings shall overthrow the thrones of the mighty.” The rare word δυνάστας is rendered potentates in 1 Timothy 6:15.
Verse 53
53. πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν. “My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry, &c.,” Isaiah 65:13; Isaiah 25:6; Psalms 34:10, and the Beatitude, Matthew 5:6. (See Luke 18:14, the Publican and the Pharisee.)
Verse 54
54. ἀντελάβετο. Literally, “took by the hand.” Isaiah 41:8-9, LXX[38] The proper rendering of the following words is ‘to remember mercy—(even as He spake to (πρὸς) our fathers)—toward (τῷ) Abraham and his seed for ever.’ Micah 7:20, “Thou wilt perform … the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.” Galatians 3:16. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.”
Verse 56
56. ὡς μῆνας τρεῖς. As this would complete the nine months of Elizabeth’s ‘full time,’ it might seem probable that the Virgin Mary remained at least until the birth of the Baptist.
ὑπέστρεψεν. This is a favourite word of St Luke, and almost (Galatians 1:17; Hebrews 7:1) peculiar to him. It occurs twenty-one times in this Gospel.
Verse 57
57. Again we have triple subsections: α. The Birth of John, 57, 58. β. His Circumcision, 59–66. γ. The Song of Zachariah, 67–80.
ὁ χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν. The genitive depends on the substantive. See Winer, p. 408.
Verses 57-80
57–80. THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
Verse 58
58. οἱ συγγενεῖς αὐτῆς. Rather, ‘her kinsfolk,’ which was the original meaning of the word cousins (con-sobrini). See Luke 1:36.
ἐμεγάλυνεν … μετ' αὐτῆς. A Hebraism (Luke 1:72; 1 Samuel 12:24. LXX[39]), but an expressive one. ‘God magnified (comp. μεγαλύνει in the Magnificat) His mercy with her.’
“I say not God Himself can make man’s best
Without best men to help Him.”
G. ELLIOT, Stradivarius.
Verse 59
59. τῇ ἡμέρα τῇ ὀγδόῃ. According to the ordinance of Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; —Philippians 3:5. The name was then given, because at the institution of circumcision the names of Abram and Sarai had been changed, Genesis 17:15. The rite was invested with extreme solemnity, and in later times a chair was always put for the prophet Elijah.
ἐκάλουν. ‘they wished to call.’ Literally, ‘they were calling,’ but the imperfect, by an idiomatic use, often expresses an unfulfilled attempt. So in Matthew 3:14, ‘he tried to prevent Him’ (διεκώλυεν). Comp. Thuc. IV. 28, ἐξανεχώρει τὰ εἰρημένα, ‘he tried to back out of his assertions.’ See Brief Greek Syntax, § 136. Winer, p. 336 (comp. Acts 7:26, συνήλλασσεν αὐτούς, ‘he tried to reconcile them’). This is the very meaning of imperfectum, “in eo quod quis voluit facere, nec tamen perfecit.” “Vere incipit actus sed ob impedimenta caret eventu.” Schäfer on Eur. Phoen. 79.
Verse 61
61. Οὐδείς ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου. We find a John among other hierarchs in Acts 4:6; Acts 5:17. Those priests however who passed the High Priesthood from one to another—a clique of Herodian Sadducees—the Boethusîm, Kamhiths, Benî Hanan, &c.—were partly of Babylonian and Egyptian origin, and had been introduced by Herod to support his purposes. They would not be of the kin of Zacharias.
Verse 62
62. ἐνένευον. The discussion whether Zacharias was deaf as well as mute is a very unimportant one, but the narrative certainly seems to imply that he was.
τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι. The τὸ is an apposition to the following sentence,—the question ‘what he might wish.’ Indirect questions are expressed by ἂν with the optative, where ἂν implies the existence of different possibilities. See Luke 6:11, διελάλουν … τί ἂν ποιήσειαν.
Verse 63
63. πινακίδιον. ‘tablet.’ A small wooden tablet (abacus) either smeared with wax, or with sand sprinkled over it, on which words were written with an iron stylus. Thus ‘John,’ (‘the grace of Jehovah,’) is the first word written under the Gospel; the aeon of the written Law had ended with Cherem, ‘curse,’ in Malachi 3:2-4 (Bengel).
ἔγραψεν λέγων. 2 Kings 10:6. It is one of the common picturesque pleonasms with which Hebrew abounds.
Ἰωάννης ἐστὶν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. The Spartan brevity and decision of his answer was more marked in the two Aramaic words—יחנן שמו —which he probably wrote.
Verse 64
64. ἀνεῴχθη. The aorist implies that the result was immediate. The A. V[40], “his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed,” translates the zeugma of the original, where ‘was opened’ is connected with both substantives, though it is not accurately applied to γλῶσσα (comp. Mark 7:35). The most marked instances of zeugma in the Greek Testament are in 1 Corinthians 3:2, γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα οὐ βρῶμα. 1 Timothy 4:3, κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων. See Winer, p. 777. For the distinction between zeugma and syllepsis, and English and other illustrations of these figures, see Brief Greek Syntax p. 195.
ἐλάλει. ‘he began to speak’ (imperfect), the previous verb ‘was opened’ being an aorist. For instances of the aorist (of an instant act) followed, as here, by the imperfect of a continuous result see Matthew 26:59, ἐζήτουν μαρτυρίαν καὶ οὐχ εὗρον: Luke 8:23, κατέβη λαῖλαψ καὶ συνεπληροῦντο: Mark 7:35; James 2:22, &c. Winer, p. 337.
Verse 65
65. φόβος. The minds of men at this period were full of dread and agitated expectancy, which had spread even to the heathen. Virg. Ecl. IV.; Orac. Sibyl. III.; Suet. Vesp. 4; Tac. Hist. Luke 1:13; Jos. Bell. Jud. VI. 5, § 4.
διελαλεῖτο. The preposition implies that they became the topic of mutual conversations.
Verse 66
66. ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν. Comp. Luke 2:19. The use of καρδίᾳ for φρεσὶ is a Hebraism. 1 Samuel 21:12.
Τί ἄρα τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἔσται; The ἄρα expresses wonderment, and is thoroughly classical, Luke 8:25, Luke 12:42. Τίς might have been used for τί by the common sense-construction (κατὰ σύνεσιν), but the τί expresses more surprise. Comp. Matthew 28:19, ἔθνη—αὐτούς, Galatians 4:19, τεκνία … οὕς. Winer, p. 176. ‘What then will this child be?’ The question implies, not “What manner of child,” (as in A. V[41]), but ‘to what kind of man will this child grow?’ Vulg[42] Quis, putas, puer iste erit?
καὶ γάρ. For indeed. (א BCDL.)
χεὶρ κυρίου ἧν μετ' αὐτοῦ. The turn of expression is Hebraistic, as throughout the chapter. Comp. Luke 13:11; Acts 11:21. “Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,” Psalms 80:17.
Verse 68
68. Εὐλογητός. This hymn of praise is hence called the BENEDICTUS. It is expressed (as was natural) almost exclusively in the language of ancient prophecy, Psalms 98:3; Psalms 105:8-9; Psalms 132:17; Isaiah 9:2; Isaiah 40:3; Ezekiel 16:60, &c. It has been in use in Christian worship perhaps as far back as the days of St Benedict in the sixth century, and it was early recognised that it is the last Prophecy of the Old Dispensation, and the first of the New, and furnishes a kind of key to the evangelical interpretation of all prophecies. It is also a continual acknowledgement of the Communion of Saints under the two dispensations; for it praises God for the salvation which has been raised up for all ages out of the house of His servant David, and according to the ancient covenant which He made with Abraham (see Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:29). Blunt, Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 16.
κύριος ὁ θεός. ‘The Lord (= Jehovah), the God of Israel.’
ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν. Literally, “made a ransom for.” Titus 2:14.
Verse 69
69. κέρας σωτηρίας. A natural and frequent metaphor. Ezekiel 29:21, “In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth.” Lamentations 2:3, “He hath cut off … all the horn of Israel.” Psalms 132:17; 1 Samuel 2:10, “He shall exalt the horn of His anointed.” (A Rabbinic writer says that there are ten horns—those of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, the horn of the Law, of the Priesthood, of the Temple, and of Israel; and some add of the Messiah. They were all placed on the heads of the Israelites till they sinned, and then they were cut off and given to the Gentiles. Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.) We find the same metaphor in classic writers. “Tunc pauper cornua sumit,” Ov. Art. Am. I. 239; “addis cornua pauperi,” Hor. Od. III. xxi.18. The expression has nothing to do with the horns of the altar, 1 Kings 1:50, &c.
παιδὸς αὐτοῦ. The word does not here mean ‘son’ in the original, but ‘servant’ being the rendering of the Hebrew ebed, Psalms 132:10.
Verse 70
70. διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων … προφητῶν αὐτοῦ. Namely, “in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms,” see on Luke 24:44. The phrase “by the month of” is the circumstantial and picturesque mode of expression so common in Semitic style.
ἀπ' αἰῶνος. ‘of old.’ πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, “fragmentarily and multifariously” (Hebrews 1:1) but “in old time” (2 Peter 1:21) and dating back even to the promises to Eve, and to Abraham (Genesis 3:15; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 49:10), and the sceptre and the star of Balaam (Numbers 24:17).
Verse 71
71. σωτηρίαν. ‘salvation’—referring back to “a horn of salvation,” to which it is in apposition. The previous verse is a parenthesis.
ἐξ ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν. No doubt in the first instance the “enemies” from which the prophets had promised deliverance were literal enemies (Deuteronomy 33:29; Isaiah 14:2; Isaiah 51:22-23, &c.), but every pious Jew would understand these words as applying also to spiritual enemies. Still, as Godet points out, the utter lack of resemblance between these anticipations, regarded in a temporal point of view, and the grim realities involved in the Fall of Jerusalem and the Rejection of Israel, are a sure mark of the authenticity of the narrative.
Verse 72
72. ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν. ‘To do mercy towards (lit. ‘with’) our fathers.’ The “promised” is a needless addition of the A. V[43]
Verse 72-73
72, 73. ἔλεος … μνησθῆναι … ὅρκον. These three words have been thought by some to be an allusion to the three names John (‘Jehovah’s mercy’), Zacharias (‘remembered by Jehovah’), and Elizabeth (see p. 88). Such plays on words, are exceedingly common in the Bible. For similar possible instances of latent paranomasiae see the author’s Life of Christ, I. 65; II. 200, 240.
Verse 73
73. ὅρκον ὃν ὤμοσεν. Genesis 12:3; Genesis 17:4; Genesis 22:16-17; comp. Hebrews 7:13-14; Hebrews 7:17. The ὅρκον is attracted into the accus. by the following relative, although we might suppose a double construction, since in the LXX[44] μνησθῆναι takes both a genitive and an accusative.
τοῦ δοῦναι. The gen. depends on ὄρκον. The use of the genitive of the article with the infinitive became very frequent in Hellenistic Greek (Acts 10:25; Acts 27:1; 1 Corinthians 2:2).
Verse 75
75. ἐν ὁσιότητι. Towards God.
καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ. Towards men. We have the same words contrasted in 1 Thessalonians 2:10, “how holily and righteously;” Ephesians 4:24, “in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” Ὅσιος, ‘holy,’ is the Hebrew Châsîd, whence the ‘Chasidîm’ (Pharisees); and δίκαιος is the Hebrew Tsaddîk, whence some derive the name ‘Sadducees.’
Verse 76
76. παιδίον. ‘little child’—“quantillus nunc es,” Bengel. From this diminutive is derived our word ‘page.’
πρὸ προσώπου. Redundant, like the Hebrew לִפְנֵי .
ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ. An allusion to the prophecies of the Forerunner in Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1.
Verse 77
77. γνῶσιν σωτηρίας. A clear proof that these prophecies had not the local and limited sense of national prosperity which some have supposed.
ἐν ἀφέσει. In remission. Comp. Acts 5:31, “to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”
Verse 78
78. διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους. Literally, “Because of the heart of mercy.” Σπλάγχνα (literally ‘bowels’ rechamîm) is a favourite word with St Paul to express emotion (2 Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 1:8; Philippians 2:1; Philemon 1:7; Philemon 1:12; Philemon 1:20, &c.). The expression is common to Jewish (Proverbs 12:10, &c.) and classical writers. (Aesch. Choeph. XL. 7.)
ἀνατολή. The word ἀνατολὴ is used by the LXX[45] to translate both Motsah ‘the dawn’ (Jeremiah 31:40) and Tsemach ‘branch’ (Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; Jeremiah 23:5. See on Matthew 2:23). Here the context shews that the dawn is intended, though the word itself might equally mean the rising of a star, as in Aesch. Agam. 7. Malachi 4:2, “Unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in His wings.” See Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:16; John 1:4-5; Revelation 7:2.
ἐπεσκέψατο, in some MSS. ‘shall visit.’
Verse 79
79. ἐπιφᾶναι. 1st aor. inf., a late (and Doric) form for ἐπιφῆναι.
σκιᾷ θανάτου. The Hebrew Tsalmaveth. Job 10:21; Job 38:17; Psalms 23:4; Psalms 107:10; Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:16, &c.
Verse 80
80. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανεν καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι. The ηὔξανεν refers to bodily, and the ἐκραταιοῦτο to mental growth. The description resembles that of the childhood of Samuel (1 Samuel 2:26) and of our Lord (Luke 2:40-52). Nothing however is said of ‘favour with men.’ In the case of the Baptist, as of others, ‘the boy was father to the man,’ and he probably shewed from the first that rugged sternness which is wholly unlike the winning grace of the child Christ. “The Baptist was no Lamb of God. He was a wrestler with life, one to whom peace does not come easily, but only after a long struggle. His restlessness had driven him into the desert, where he had contended for years with thoughts he could not master, and from whence he uttered his startling alarms to the nation. He was among the dogs rather than among the lambs of the Shepherd.” (Ecce Homo.)
ἦν ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις. Not in sandy deserts like those of Arabia, but in the wild waste region south of Jericho and the fords of Jordan as far as the shores of the Dead Sea. This was known as Araboth or ha-Arabah, 2 Kings 25:4-5 (Heb.); Jeremiah 39:5; Jeremiah 52:8; Matthew 3:1. See on Luke 1:39. This region, especially where it approached the Ghôr and the Dead Sea, was lonely and forbidding in its physical features, and would suit the stern spirit on which it also reacted. In 1 Samuel 23:19 it is called Jeshimon or ‘the Horror.’ The political unsettlement, the shamelessness of crime, the sense of secular exhaustion, the widespread Messianic expectation, marked ‘the fulness of time,’ and drove men to desire solitude. John was by no means the only hermit. Banus the Pharisee also lived a life of ascetic hardness in the Arabah, and Josephus tells us that he lived with him for three years in his mountain-cave on fruits and water. (Jos. Vit. 2.) But there is not in the Gospels the faintest trace of any intercourse between John, or our Lord and His disciples, and the Essenes. John has Messianic hopes; the Essenes had laid them aside. The Essenes were recluse ascetics; St John is a preacher, a reformer, a missionary. The Essenes were mystics; St John is intensely practical (see Godet, p. 145). The great Italian painters follow a right conception when they paint even the boy John as emaciated with early asceticism. In 2 Esdras 9:24 the seer is directed to go into a field where no house is, and to “taste no flesh, drink no wine, and eat only the flowers of the field,” as a preparation for ‘talking with the Most High.’ It is doubtful whether Christian Art is historically correct in representing the infant Jesus and John as constant friends and playmates. Zacharias and Elizabeth, being aged, must have early left John an orphan, and his desert life began with his boyish years. Further, the habits of Orientals are exceedingly stationary, and when once settled it is only on the rarest occasions that they leave their homes. The training of the son of the priest and the ‘Son of the Carpenter’ (Matthew 13:55) of Nazareth had been widely different, nor is it certain that they had ever met each other until the Baptism of Jesus (John 1:31).
ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ. His public ministry, literally, “appointment” or manifestation. The verb (ἀνέδειξεν) occurs in Luke 10:1; Acts 1:24. Thus St John’s life, like that of our Lord, was spent first in hallowed seclusion, then in public ministry.
At this point ends the first very interesting document of which St Luke made use. The second chapter, though in some respects analogous to it, is less imbued with the Hebraic spirit and phraseology.
02 Chapter 2
Verse 1
1. It is said ‘that there is no trace of such a decree in secular history.’ The answer is that (α) the argumentum e silentio is here specially invalid because there happens to be a singular deficiency of minute records respecting this epoch in the ‘profane’ historians. The history of Nicolaus of Damascus, the flatterer of Herod, is not extant. Tacitus barely touches on this period (Ann. I. 1, “pauca de Augusto”). There is a hiatus in Dion Cassius from A.U.C. 748–752. Josephus does not enter upon the history of these years. (β) There are distinct traces that such a census took place. Augustus with his own hand drew up a Rationarium of the Empire (a sort of Roman Doomsday Book, afterwards epitomised into a Breviarium), which included the allied kingdoms (Tac. Ann. I. 11; Suet. Aug. 28), and appointed twenty Commissioners to draw up the necessary lists (Suidas s.v. ἀπογραφή).
Verses 1-7
Luke 2:1-7. THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST
In this chapter as in the last there is a prevailing triplicity of arrangement. In the first section we have—α. The Nativity, 1–7. β. The Angelic Announcement, 8–14. γ. The Visit of the Shepherds, 15–20.
Verse 2
2. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. ‘This first enrolment took place’ (literally ‘took place as the first’) ‘when Quirinus was governor of Syria.’ We are here met by an apparent error on which whole volumes have been written. Quirinus (or Quirinus, for the form of his name is not absolutely certain) was governor (Praeses, Legatus) of Syria in A.D. 6, ten years after this time, and he then carried out a census which led to the revolt of Judas of Galilee, as St Luke himself was aware (Acts 5:37). Hence it is asserted that St Luke made an error of ten years in the governorship of Quirinus, and the date of the census, which vitiates his historic authority. Two ways of obviating this difficulty may finally be rejected.
(α) One is to render the words ‘took place before (πρώτη) Quirinus was governor.’ The translation is entirely untenable, and is not supported by πρῶτός μου ‘before me’ in John 1:30. And if this were the meaning the remark would be most unnecessary. The worst of all possible ways of avoiding a difficulty, real or imaginary, doctrinal or historical, is the too common method of suggesting some impossible translation or emendation.
(β) Others would render the verb ἐγένετο by ‘took effect:’—this enrolment was begun at this period (B.C. 4 of our vulgar era) by P. Sentius Saturninus, but not completed till the Procuratorship of Quirinus A.D. 6. But this is to give a strained meaning to the verb, as well as to take the ordinal (πρώτη) as though it were an adverb (πρῶτον).
(γ) A third, and more tenable, view is to extend the meaning of ἡγεμονεύοντος ‘was governor’ to imply that Quirinus, though not actually Governor of Syria, yet might be called ἡγεμών, either (i) as one of the twenty taxers or commissioners of Augustus, or (ii) as holding some procuratorial office (as Epitropos or joint Epitropos with Herod; comp. Jos. Antt. XV. 10. 3; B.J. I. 20. 4). It is, however, a strong objection to this solution (i) that the commissioners were ἄριστοι, optimates or nobles, whereas Quirinus was a novus homo: and to (ii) that St Luke is remarkably accurate in his use of titles.
(δ) A fourth view, and one which I still hold to be the right solution, is that first developed by A. W. Zumpt (Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1870), and never seriously refuted, though often sneered at. It is that Quirinus was twice Governor of Syria, once in B.C. 4 when he began the census (which may have been ordered, as Tertullian says, by Varus, or by P. Sentius Saturninus); and once in A.D. 6 when he carried it to completion. It is certain that in A.U.C. 753 Quirinus conquered the Homonadenses in Cilicia, and was rector to Gaius Caesar. Now it is highly probable that these Homonadenses were at that time under the jurisdiction of the propraetor of the Imperial Province of Syria, an office which must in that case have been held by Quirinus between B.C. 4—B.C. 1. The indolence of Varus and his friendship with Archelaus may have furnished strong reasons for superseding him, and putting the diligent and trustworthy Quirinus in his place. Whichever of these latter views be accepted, one thing is certain, that no error is demonstrable, and that on independent historical grounds, as well as from his own proved accuracy in other instances, we have the strongest reason to admit the probability of St Luke’s reference.
Κυρηνίου. This is the Greek form of the name Quirinus, Orelli ad Tac. Ann. II. 30. B however reads Κυρείνου. All that we know of him is that he was of obscure and provincial origin, and rose to the consulship by activity and military skill, afterwards earning a triumph for his successes in Cilicia. He was harsh, and avaricious, but a loyal soldier; and he was honoured with a public funeral in A.D. 21 (Tac. Ann. II. 30, III. 22, 48; Suet. Tib. 49, &c.).
Verse 3
3. ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν. This method of enrolment was a concession to Jewish prejudices. The Roman method was to enrol each person at his own place of residence. Incidentally this unexplained notice proves that St Luke is dealing with an historical enrolment.
Verse 4
4. ἀπὸ … ἐκ. The prepositions are here used with classical accuracy. ἀπὸ means ‘direction from’ (ab); ἐκ means ‘from within’ (ex).
πόλιν Δαυείδ. 1 Samuel 17:12, “David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah whose name was Jesse.”
ἥτις. In Hellenistic Greek many relative pronouns (properly used in indirect sentences, repetitions, &c.) being mere luxuries of language tend to disappear, as in modern Greek, or are used without distinction. ἥτις is here used correctly (like “the which” in Shakespeare and in Genesis 1:29). In the N. T. ὅστις is more common than ὅς.
Βηθλεὲμ. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2, “Thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah … out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.” Cf. Luke 4:8, “And thou, O tower of the flock” (Migdol Eder, Genesis 35:21), “unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion.”
Bethlehem (‘House of Bread,’ to which the mystical method of Scriptural interpretation refers such passages as Isaiah 33:16, LXX[57]; John 6:51; John 6:58) is the very ancient Ephrath (‘fruitful’) of Genesis 35:16; Genesis 48:7; Psalms 132:6. It is a small town six miles from Jerusalem. It was the scene of the death of Rachel (Genesis 35:19); of the story of Ruth; and of the early years of the life of David (1 Samuel 16:1; 2 Samuel 23:15). Our Lord does not seem to have ever visited it again. The name is now corrupted into Beitlahm, ‘house of flesh.’
ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυείδ, of the house and family (Ephesians 3:15) of David. The humble condition of Joseph as a provincial carpenter in no way militates against this. Hillel, the great contemporary Rabbi, who also claimed to be a descendant of David, began life as a half-starved porter; and numbers of beggars in the East wear the green turban which shews them to be undisputed descendants of Mohammed.
Verse 5
5. ἀπογράψασθαι, ‘to enrol himself.’
σὺν ΄αριάμ. If these words be taken with ἀπογράψασθαι they would imply either that the presence of women was obligatory, as Ulpian says (De Censibus), or that Mary had some possession at Bethlehem. It is uncertain whether her presence was obligatory (Dion. Hal. IV. 5; Lact. De Mort. Persec. 23) or voluntary; but it is obvious that at so trying a time, and after what she had suffered (Matthew 1:19), she would cling to the presence and protection of her husband. Nor is it wholly impossible that she saw in the providential circumstances a fulfilment of prophecy.
τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ, who was betrothed to him; ‘wife’ is omitted in BDL.
Verse 6
6. ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι. There is a reasonable certainty that our Lord was born B.C. 4 of our era, and it is probable that He was born (according to the unanimous tradition of the Christian Church) in winter. There is nothing to guide us as to the actual day of His birth. It was unknown to the ancient Christians (Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 21). Some thought that it took place on May 20 or April 20. There is no trace of the date Dec. 25 earlier than the fourth century, but it is accepted by Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, &c.
Verse 7
7. καὶ ἔτεκεν. See note on Luke 1:9. The belief in a painless birth, clauso utero, and similar miracles, which are found in some Fathers, are apocryphal fictions which derive no countenance from the Gospels. See Luke 2:23.
πρωτότοκον. The word has no decisive bearing on the controversy as to the ‘brethren of Jesus,’ as it does not necessarily imply that the Virgin had other children. See Hebrews 1:6, where first-born = only-begotten.
ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτόν. Ezekiel 16:4. In her poverty she had none to help her, but (in the common fashion of the East) wound the babe round and round with swathes with her own hands.
ἐν φάτνῃ. If the Received Text were correct it would be ‘in the manger,’ but the article is omitted by ABDL. φάτνη is sometimes rendered ‘stall’ (as in Luke 13:15; 2 Chronicles 32:28, LXX[58]); but ‘manger’ is probably right here. It is derived from πατέομαι, ‘I eat’ (Curtius, Griech. Et. II. 84), and is used by the LXX[59] for the Hebrew אֵבוּם ‘crib,’ in Proverbs 14:4. Mangers are very ancient, and are to this day sometimes used as cradles in the East (Thomson, Land and Book, II. 533). The ox and the ass which are traditionally represented in pictures are only mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of Matthew 14, and were suggested by Isaiah 1:3, and Habakkuk 3:2, which in the LXX[60] and the ancient Latin Version (Itala) was mistranslated “Between two animals thou shalt be made known.”
οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι. Κατάλυμα may also mean guest-chamber as in Luke 22:11, but inn seems to be here the right rendering. There is another word for inn, πανδοχεῖον (Luke 10:34), which implies an inn with a host. Bethlehem was a poor place, and its inn was probably a mere khan or caravanserai, which is an enclosed space surrounded by open recesses of which the paved floor (leewan) is raised a little above the ground. There is often no host, and the use of any vacant leewan is free, but the traveller pays a trifle for food, water, &c. If the khan be crowded the traveller must be content with a corner of the courtyard or enclosed place among the cattle, or else in the stable. The stable is often a limestone cave or grotto, and there is a very ancient tradition that this was the case in the khan of Bethlehem. (Just. Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 78, and the Apocryphal Gospels, Protev. xix., Evang. Infant. iii. &c.) If, as is most probable, the traditional site of the Nativity is the real one, it took place in one of the caves where St Jerome spent so many years (Ep. 24, ad Marcell.) as a hermit, and translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). This fact must not, however, be connected with Isaiah 33:16, which has nothing to do with it. The khan perhaps dated back as far as the days of David under the name of the House or Hotel (Gérooth) of Chimham (2 Samuel 19:37-38; Jeremiah 41:17).
The tender grace and perfect simplicity of the narrative is one of the marks of its truthfulness, and is again in striking contrast with the endlessly multiplied miracles of the Apocryphal Gospels. “The unfathomable depths of the divine counsels were moved; the fountains of the great deep were broken up; the healing of the nations was issuing forth; but nothing was seen on the surface of human society but this slight rippling of the water.” Isaac Williams, The Nativity.
Verse 8
8. ποιμένες. Shepherds at this time were a despised class, so that in this instance first πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται. Luke 7:22 (Meyer). Why these were the first to whom was revealed the birth of Him who was called the Lamb of God we are not told. The sheep used for the daily sacrifice were pastured in the fields of Bethlehem.
ἀγραυλοῦντες. This does not prove, as some have supposed, that the Nativity took place in spring, for in some pastures of Palestine the shepherds to this day bivouac with their flocks in winter. See, however, Robinson, Bibl. Res. II. 505, who thinks that this would not be possible at Bethlehem in the rainy season of December. On the other hand, we cannot estimate the extent to which the climate may have altered.
ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ. Tradition says that they were natives of the little village Beth-zur (Joshua 15:58; Nehemiah 3:16). They were feeding their flocks in the same fields from which David had been summoned to feed Jacob, God’s people, and Israel His inheritance.
Verses 8-20
8–20. THE ANGELS TO THE SHEPHERDS
Verse 9
9. καί. The phrase ἰδοὺ often introduces some strange or memorable event; but is here omitted by א BL and some versions.
ἐπέστη. A common word in St Luke, who uses it eighteen times, Luke 24:4; Acts 12:7, &c. It may mean stood by them.
δόξα κυρίου. The Shechinah, or cloud of brightness which symbolised the Divine Presence, as in Exodus 24:16; 1 Kings 8:10; Isaiah 6:1-3; Acts 7:55. See on Luke 1:35. The presence of the Shechinah was reckoned as one of the most precious blessings of Israel, Romans 9:4.
Verse 10
10. εὐαγγελίζομαι. See on Luke 1:19.
χαρὰν μεγάλην. See Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 61:1; Romans 5:11; 1 Peter 1:8. The contrast of the condition of despair and sorrow into which the heathen world had sunk and the joy of Christians even in the deepest adversity—as when we find “joy” to be the key-note of the letter written to Philippi by the suffering prisoner St Paul—is a striking comment on this promise. Even the pictures and epitaphs of the gloomy catacombs are full of joy and brightness.
ἥτις. The relative is emphatic—‘such that it shall be.’
παντὶ τῷ λαῷ. ‘To all the people’ sc. of Israel.
Verse 11
11. ἐτέχθη. A form not found in classical Attic.
σωτήρ. It is a curious fact that ‘Saviour’ and ‘Salvation,’ so common in St Luke and St Paul (in whose writings they occur forty-four times), are comparatively rare in the rest of the New Testament. ‘Saviour’ only occurs in John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; and six times in 2 Pet. and Jude; ‘salvation’ only in John 4:22, and thirteen times in the rest of the N.T.
Χριστὸς κύριος. “God hath made that same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36; Philippians 2:11. ‘Christ’ or ‘Anointed’ is the Greek equivalent of Messiah. In the Gospels it is almost invariably an appellative, ‘the Christ.’ But as time advanced it was more and more used without the article as a proper name. Our Lord was ‘anointed’ with the Holy Spirit as Prophet, Priest and King.
κύριος. In the lower sense the word is used as a title of distinction; in the higher sense it is (as in the LXX[61]) the equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Jehovah’—the ineffable name. “We preach Christ Jesus the Lord,” 2 Corinthians 4:5 (see Philippians 2:11; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; “No one can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” 1 Corinthians 12:3).
Verse 12
12. τὸ σημεῖον, ‘the sign.’ Comp. Isaiah 7:14.
βρέφος, ‘a babe.’
ἐσπαργανωμένον. The participle is here regarded as an adjective, and is followed by κείμενον.
Verse 13
13. πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίον. The Sabaoth, or Tseba hashamayîm. 1 Kings 22:19; Psalms 103:21; Matthew 26:53; Romans 9:29; James 5:4. “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him,” Daniel 7:10; Revelation 5:11-12. The word is also used of the stars as objects of heathen worship, Acts 7:42.
Verse 14
14. ἐν ὑψίστοις. i.e., in highest heaven, Job 16:19; Psalms 148:1; comp. “the heavenlies” in Ephesians 1:3, &c.; Sirach 43:9.
ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη.
“No war or battle’s sound
Was heard the world around;
The idle spear and shield were high uphung:
The hookèd chariot stood
Unstained with hostile blood,
The trumpet spake not to the armèd throng;
And kings sat still with awful eye
As if they surely knew their sovran Lord was by.”
MILTON, Ode on the Nativity.
This however is only an ideal aspect of affairs, and the closing at this time of the Temple of Janus had little or no meaning. It was not in this sense that the birth of Christ brought Peace. If we understood the expression thus we might well say with Coleridge:
“Strange Prophecy! if all the screams
Of all the men that since have died
To realize war’s kingly dreams
Had risen at once in one vast tide,
The choral song of that vast multitude
Had been o’erpowered and lost amid the uproar rude.”
The Angels sang indeed of such an ultimate Peace; but also of “the peace which passeth understanding;” of that peace whereof Christ said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you.” See Proverbs 3:17; on which the Book of Zohar remarks that it means peace in heaven and on earth, and in this world and the next. As regards earthly peace He himself said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,” Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51. See this contrast magnificently shadowed forth in Isaiah 9:5-6.
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. The reading εὐδοκία ‘goodwill,’ is found in B3; but א ABD read εὐδοκίας, and if this be the right reading the meaning is “on earth peace among men of good will” (hominibus bonae voluntatis, Vulg[62]), i.e. those with whom God is well pleased. “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that hope in His mercy,” Psalms 147:11; comp. Luke 12:32, “it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” The construction “men of good will” would be rare in this sense, but the triple parallelism of the verse,
|Glory |to God |in the highest |
|Peace |to men whom God loves |on earth |
seems to favour it. In either case the verse implies that “being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Romans 5:1. The adoption of the reading εὐδοκίας by the R.V[63] (“peace among men in whom He is well pleased”) has been fiercely attacked, but has always been the accepted reading of the Western Church, and is found in a passage of Origen. It may be doubted whether the Angels meant to contrast the future privileges of Man with their own (Hebrews 2:15). The meaning is “God’s peace among all to whom these tidings shall come, and who in accepting them become His dear children, the objects of His good pleasure,” (Humphry). The “towards” of the A. V[64] is wrong, and must be altered into “among” (ἐν).
“Glory to God on high, on earth be peace,
And love towards men of love—salvation and release.”—KEBLE.
Verse 15
15. καὶ ἐγένετο.… In Hellenistic Greek ἐγένετο sometimes becomes little more than a particle of transition in coordinated sentences. See Luke 1:59.
διέλθωμεν δή. ‘Come now! let us go.’
Verse 16
16. ἀνεῦραν ‘discovered after search.’ These forms of the 2nd aorist in αν are due to false analogy. They have been restored by modern editors from the best MSS., but it is perhaps impossible to decide how far they may have been due to the copyists. This verb is only found again in Acts 21:4 in the N. T.
Verse 17
17. ἐγνώρισαν. Thus the shepherds were the first Christian preachers. The reading διεγν. may have sprung from the previous δὲ by homoeoteleuton.
Verse 19
19. πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ‘all these things’ or ‘words.’
συνετήρει. The imperfect follows the aorist as in Luke 1:64 (where see note). The verb is used in Daniel 7:28; Mark 6:20.
συνβάλλουσα. Literally, “casting together,” i.e. comparing and considering; like our ‘casting in mind.’ Comp. Genesis 37:11, “his father observed the saying.” She did not at once understand the full significance of all these events.
Verse 20
20. δοξάζοντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες. Glorifying God for the greatness of the event, and praising Him for its mercy (Godet).
Verse 21
21. τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν. The genitive of the purpose. The old way of explaining it was to understand ἕνεκα or χάριν, but it is neither an ellipse nor an Hebraism, but a classic idiom resulting from the original force of the genitive, see Winer p. 408. This construction is specially common in St Luke (Luke 2:22, Luke 5:7, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:31; Acts 3:2, &c.) It must be distinguished from the genitives in Luke 1:57, Luke 2:6, which depend on the substantives. Genesis 17:12. Doubtless the rite was performed by Joseph. “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision” (i.e. went to the Jew first) “for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” Romans 15:8; Galatians 4:4. Thus it became Him ‘to be made like unto His brethren, and to fulfil all righteousness,’ Matthew 3:15. Christ suffered pain thus early for our sake to teach us that, though He ordained for us the painless rite of baptism, we must practise the spiritual circumcision—the circumcision of the heart. He came “not to destroy the Law but to fulfil,” Matthew 5:17; γενόμενος ὑπὸ νόμον, Galatians 4:4.
“He, who with all heaven’s heraldry whilere
Entered the world, now bleeds to give us ease.
Alas, how soon our sin
Sore doth begin
His infancy to seize!”
MILTON, The Circumcision.
καί. There is a mixture of two constructions, namely ἐπλήσθησαν … καὶ and ὅτε ἐπλ … ἐκλήθη (comp. Luke 7:12).
ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς. See on Luke 1:31. The name of the child was bestowed at circumcision, as with us at baptism. Among Greeks and Romans also the genethlia and nominalia were on the eighth or ninth day. Observe the brief notice of Christ’s circumcision compared with the fuller and more elaborate account of John’s. “In the person of John the rite of circumcision solemnised its last glories.”
Verse 22
22. τοῖ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν, ‘their purification.’ The reading αὐτῆς, ‘her,’ of the Received Text is almost unsupported. All the Uncials read αὐτῶν, ‘their,’ except D, which probably by an oversight read αὐτοῦ, ‘His.’ Strictly speaking, the child was never purified, but only the mother (Leviticus 12:1-8). The purification took place on the fortieth day after the Nativity, and till then a mother was not permitted to leave her house. The feast of the Presentation was known in the Eastern Church as the Ὑπαπαντή.
κατὰ τὸν νόμον ΄ωϋσέως. See this Law in Leviticus 12:2-4. Jesus was “made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem those that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,” Galatians 4:4-5.
ἀνήγαγον. The road from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is a descent, but ἀνάγειν is naturally used of the Capital, and especially of the Temple which is on a hill (often called by the Rabbis “the hill of the House”).
Verses 22-24
22–24. THE PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE
Verse 23
23. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν νόμῳ κυρίου. The term γέγραπται implies the permanence of the Law (Luther, stehet geschrieben). The tribe of Levi were sanctified to the Lord in lieu of the firstborn, and originally all the firstborn in excess of the number of the Levites had to be redeemed with five shekels of the sanctuary (about 15 shillings), a rule afterwards extended to all the firstborn. Exodus 13:2; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19; Numbers 3:13; Numbers 18:15-16.
Verse 24
24. ζεῦγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νεοσσούς. Leviticus 12:8. The offering appointed was a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin-offering, which were to be brought to the door of the tabernacle and with which “the priest shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean.” But the Law of Moses, with that thoughtful tenderness which characterises many of its provisions, allowed a poor mother to bring two turtledoves instead; and since turtledoves (being migratory) are not always procurable, and old pigeons are not easily caught, offered the alternative of “two young pigeons.” Leviticus 12:6-8. (Tristram.)
Verse 25
25. ἄνθρωπος … ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεών. This cannot be Rabban Shimeon the son of Hillel (whom the Talmud is on this account supposed to pass over almost unnoticed), because he would hardly have been spoken of so slightly as ἄνθρωπος, ‘a person.’ The Apocryphal Gospels call him “the great teacher” (James xxvi., Nicod. xvi.).
εὐλαβής used only by St Luke. Acts 2:5; Acts 8:2; Acts 22:12 (properly “holding well.”)
προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. See Genesis 49:18. “They shall not be ashamed that wait for me,” Isaiah 49:23. “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God,” Isaiah 40:1. Joseph of Arimathea is also described as one who “waited for the Kingdom of God,” Mark 15:43. “May I see the consolation of Israel!” was a common Jewish formula, and a prayer for the Advent of the Messiah was daily used; and Menachem ‘the Consoler’ was recognised as one of the names of the Messiah. παράκλησιν is anarthrous, because the word had become technical.
Verses 25-35
25–35. SIMEON AND THE NUNC DIMITTIS
Verse 26
26. ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον. For the use of this word to imply a divine communication see Acts 10:22; Matthew 2:12. χρηματισμὸς an oracle Romans 11:4. Christian legend says that he had stumbled at Isaiah 7:14, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” and had received a divine intimation that he should not die till he had seen it fulfilled (Nicephorus, A.D. 1450). The notion of his extreme age is not derived from Scripture but from the ‘Gospel of the Nativity of Mary,’ which says that he was 113.
τὸν Χριστὸν κυρίου. The anointed of Jehovah.
Verse 27
27. ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. ‘In the (Holy) Spirit.’
ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν … τὸ παιδίον. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (vi.) says that he saw Him shining like a pillar of light in His mother’s arms, which is probably derived from Luke 2:32.
Verse 28
28. αὐτός. The word is emphatic. He took the child into his own arms.
εἰς τὰς ἀγκάλας. Hence he is sometimes called Theodokos, ‘the receiver of God,’ as Ignatius is sometimes called Theophoros, ‘borne of God,’ from the fancy that he was one of the children whom Christ took in His arms (see on Luke 9:47).
Verse 29
29. Νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα. ‘Now art Thou setting free Thy slave, O Master, according to Thy word, in peace.’ Νῦν ‘now, at last!’ The present tense is the so-called praesens futurascens where an action still future is spoken of in the present because it is unalterably determined, and the result is already in course of accomplishment. See instances of it in Matthew 26:2 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται; John 14:3 πάλιν ἔρχομαι; Colossians 3:6; Hebrews 4:3. See Winer p. 331. This rapturous Psalm—the Nunc Dimittis—has formed a part of Christian evening worship certainly since the fifth century. Δεσπότης is not often used of God (Acts 4:24; Revelation 6:10); but Simeon here regards himself as a servant to be dismissed by the word of his Lord.
ἐν εἰρήνῃ. On leaving a dying person the Jews said, ‘Go in peace (Beshalôm), Genesis 15:15. Otherwise they said, ‘Go to peace’ (Leshalôm) as Jethro did to Moses. See on Luke 7:50.
Verse 30
30. τὸ σωτήριον. This seems to have a wider meaning than τὴν σωτηρίαν.
Verse 32
32. εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν ‘for revelation to.’ A memorable prophecy, considering that even the Apostles found it hard to grasp the full admission of the Gentiles, clearly as it had been indicated in older prophecy, e.g. in Psalms 98:2-3, “All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God,” Isaiah 52:10. “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles,” Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6. Godet after pointing out the depth and energy of the Nunc Dimittis excellently remarks “La banalité légendaire n’a pas plus de part à la composition de ce joyau lyrique que la préoccupation dogmatique.”
Verse 33
33. ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. This is the undoubted reading, א BDL, &c.
περὶ αὐτοῦ. ‘About Him.’
Verse 34
34. κεῖται. Compare Philippians 1:17. Literally, “lies.” The metaphor is taken from a stone which may either become ‘a stone of stumbling’ and ‘a rock of offence’ (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:32-33; 1 Corinthians 1:23), or ‘a precious corner-stone’ (1 Peter 2:7-8; Acts 4:11; 1 Corinthians 3:11).
εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν. ‘For the falling and rising.’ For the fall of many Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, Nazarenes, Gadarenes; and for the rising of all that believed on Him. In some cases—as that of Peter and the dying robber—they who fell afterwards rose. In all these cases the presence of Christ involved a moral judgment. It became ‘a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death.’ πτῶσις only occurs again in Matthew 7:27.
ἀντιλεγόμενον. ‘Which is spoken against.’ “As concerning this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against,” Acts 28:22. Jesus was called “this deceiver,” “a Samaritan,” “a demoniac,” and in the Talmud He is only alluded to as ‘So and So’ (Peloni), ‘that man’ (Otho haîsh), ‘Absalom,’ ‘the hung’ (Thalooi), ‘the son of Pandera,’ &c. To this day Nuzrâni, ‘Christian,’ is—after ‘Jew’—the most stinging term of reproach throughout Palestine. Among Pagans the Christians were charged with cannibalism, incest, and every conceivable atrocity, and Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus have no gentler words for Christianity than ‘an execrable, extravagant, or malefic superstition.’ To holy men like Zacharias and Simeon God had revealed that the Glory of the Messiah was to be perfected by suffering (Hebrews 2:10). They, at least, did not expect an earthly conqueror—
“Armed in flame, all glorious from afar,
Of hosts the captain, and the Lord of War.”
Verse 35
35. ῥομφαία. Probably a broad Thracian lance (framea). The word only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament in Revelation 1:16, &c., but it is used in the LXX[65], as in Zechariah 13:7, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd.” Almost from the very birth of Christ the sword began to pierce the soul of the ‘Mater Dolorosa;’ and what tongue can describe the weight of mysterious anguish which she felt as she watched the hatred and persecution which followed Jesus and saw Him die on the cross amid the execrations of all classes of those whom He came to save?
ὅπως ἂν, ut forte. The result is regarded as depending on circumstances. The idiom is rare in the N.T., only occurring in Acts 3:19; Acts 15:17; Romans 3:4.
ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί. ‘That reasonings out of many hearts may be revealed.’ The word διαλογισμοὶ generally has a bad sense as in Luke 5:22; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:21. Hence there is no reason for the addition of πονηροὶ in א . By way of comment see the reasonings of the Jews in John 9:16 : 1 Corinthians 9:19; 1 John 2:19.
Verse 36
36. Ἄννα. The same name as Hannah (1 Samuel 1:20), from the root Chânan, ‘he was gracious.’
προφῆτις. The predicate in apposition usually has the article, as in Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, Ἄγριππα ὁ βασιλεύς. But it is sometimes omitted where there is no desire to distinguish a person from others, as in Σίμων βυρσεύς, Acts 10:32. Comp. Luke 8:3. Anna was ‘a prophetess’ like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah (2 Chronicles 34:22).
Φανουήλ. ‘The Face of God;’ the same word as Peniel, Genesis 32:30.
Ἀσήρ. Though the Ten Tribes were lost, individual Jews who belonged to them had preserved their genealogies. Thus Tobit was of the tribe of Naphtali (Tobit 1:1). Comp. “our twelve tribes,” Acts 26:7; James 1:1.
ζήσασα. This 1. aor. of ζάω is only found in Hippocrates, and later writers, and in Hellenistic Greek.
ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς. I.e. she had been married only seven years, and was now 84 years old. א ABL read ἔως (for ὡς) which is best taken with “of great age,” the intervening words being parenthetic.
Verses 36-40
36–40. ANNA THE PROPHETESS. THE RETURN TO NAZARETH
Verse 37
37. οὐκ ἀφίστατο. She was present (that is) at all the stated hours of prayer; unless we suppose that her position as a prophetess had secured her the right of living in one of the Temple chambers, and perhaps of doing some work for it like trimming the lamps (as is the Rabbinic notion about Deborah, derived from the word Lapidoth ‘splendours’).
νηστείαις. The Law of Moses had only appointed one yearly fast, on the Great Day of Atonement. But the Pharisees had adopted the practice of ‘fasting twice in the week,’ viz. on Monday and Thursday, when Moses is supposed to have ascended, and descended from, Sinai (see on Luke 18:12). In other respects also they had multiplied and extended the simple original injunction (Luke 5:33).
δεήσεσι. Supplications (a more special word than προσευχαῖς).
λατρεύουσα νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν. Worshipping night and day. ‘Night’ is put first by the ordinary Hebrew idiom (as in the Greek word νυχθήμερον) which arose from their notion that ‘God made the world in six days and seven nights.’ Comp. Acts 26:7, “unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God night and day (Greek), hope to come.” 1 Timothy 5:5, “she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.” Meyer thinks that this order of the words implies more fervency of service.
Verse 38
38. καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα. And at that very hour (not ‘instant’ as in A. V[66]) she, suddenly coming in.
ἀνθωμολογεῖτο, began in turn to give thanks. The ἀντὶ might seem to point to a sort of antiphony between Anna and Simeon, but the compound verb is used in the LX[67] in the simple sense. It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.
προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν. See Luke 2:25, Luke 24:21; Mark 15:43; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:28. See Excursus VII.
Ἱερουσαλήμ. The readings vary. Perhaps the rendering should be ‘waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.’
Verse 39
39. Between this verse and the last come the events narrated by St Matthew only—namely the Visit of the Magi; the Flight into Egypt; and the Massacre of the Innocents. It is difficult to believe that either of the Evangelists had seen the narrative of the other, because the primâ facie inference from either singly would be imperfectly correct. They supplement each other, because they each narrate the truth, though probably neither of them was aware of all that has been delivered to us.
Verse 40
40. ἐκραταιοῦτο. The ἐν πνεύματι of our Received Text is omitted in א BDL.
πληρούμενον. ‘Being or becoming filled.’ The growth of our Lord is here described as a natural human growth. The nature of the ‘Hypostatic Union’ of His Divine and Human nature—what is called the Perichoresis or Communicatio idiomatum—is one of the subtlest and least practical of mysteries. The attempt to define and enter into it was only forced upon the Church by the speculations of Oriental heretics who vainly tried “to soar into the secrets of the Deity on the waxen wings of the senses.” This verse (and still more Luke 2:52) is a stronghold against the Apollinarian heresy which held that in Jesus the Divine Logos took the place of the human soul. Against the four conflicting heresies of Arius, Apollinarius, Nestorius and Eutyches, which respectively denied the true Godhead, the perfect manhood, the indivisible union, and the entire distinctness of the Godhead and manhood in Christ, the Church, in the four great Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), Ephesus (A.D. 431), and Chalcedon (A.D. 451), established the four words which declare her view of the nature of Christ—ἀληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως—‘truly’ God; ‘perfectly’ man; ‘indivisibly’ Godman, ‘distinctly’ God and Man. See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. Leviticus 10.
χάρις θεοῦ ἦν ἐπ' αὐτό. Isaiah 11:2-3. “Full of grace and truth,” John 1:14. “Take notice here that His doing nothing wonderful was itself a kind of wonder.… As there was power in His actions, so is there power in His silence, in His inactivity, in His retirement.” Bonaventura. The worthless legends and inventions of many of the Apocryphal Gospels deal almost exclusively with the details of the Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy of Christ, which are passed over in the Gospels in these few words.
Verse 41
41. οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ. The great Rabbi Hillel had recommended women to attend the Passover. It was not enjoined by the Law, but the Jews admired it as a pious practice. (Mechilta, f. 17. 2 in Schöttgen.) Doubtless one of the reasons why Marcion exscinded these chapters in his mutilated St Luke was the respect shewn for Levitic ordinances in Luke 1:6, Luke 2:22-24, &c.
τῇ ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα. At the feast (Luth. auf das Osterfest). This is the dative of time. Comp. Luke 8:29, Luke 12:20, Luke 13:14-16. St Luke sometimes inserts the preposition, Luke 1:26, Luke 3:1. Winer, p. 273 sq. Exodus 23:15-17; Deuteronomy 16:1-16. The custom of going up three times a year seems long to have fallen into abeyance with most Jews. 1 Samuel 1:21, “the yearly sacrifice.”
Verses 41-52
41–52. THE PASSOVER VISIT TO THE TEMPLE
Verse 42
42. ἐτῶν δώδεκα. No single word breaks the silence of the Gospels respecting the childhood of Jesus from the return to Nazareth till this time. We infer indeed from scattered hints in Scripture that He “began to do” His work before He “began to teach,” and being “tempted in all points like as we are” won the victory from His earliest years, alike over positive and negative temptations. (Hebrews 5:8. See Ullmann, Sinlessness of Jesus, E. Tr. p. 140.) Up to this time He had grown as other children grow, only in a childhood of stainless and sinless beauty—“as the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and as lilies by the waters,” Sirach 39:13-14. This incident of His ‘confirmation,’ as in modern language we might call it, is the “solitary floweret out of the wonderful enclosed garden of the thirty years, plucked precisely there where the swollen but at a distinctive crisis bursts into flower.” Stier, Words of Jesus, I. 18.
This silence of the Evangelists is a proof of their simple faithfulness, and is in striking contrast with the blaze of foolish and dishonouring miracles with which the Apocryphal Gospels degrade the Divine Boyhood. Meanwhile we are permitted to see (i) That our Lord never attended the schools of the Rabbis (Mark 6:2; John 6:42; John 7:15). His teaching was absolutely original, and He would therefore be regarded by the Rabbis as a ‘man of the people,’ or ‘unlearned person.’ (See Acts 4:13; T. B. Berachôth, f. 47. 2; Sirach 38:24 fg.) (ii) That He had learnt to write (John 8:6). (iii) That He was acquainted not only with Aramaic, but with Hebrew, Greek, and perhaps Latin (Life of Christ, I. 91); and (iv) That He had been deeply impressed by the lessons of nature (id. I.93).
δώδεκα. Up to this age a Jewish boy was called ‘little,’ afterwards he was called ‘grown up,’ and became a ‘Son of the Law,’ or ‘Son of the Precepts.’ At this age he was presented on the Sabbath called the ‘Sabbath of Phylacteries’ in the Synagogue, and began to wear the phylacteries with which his father presented him. According to the Jews twelve was the age at which Moses left the house of Pharaoh’s daughter, and Samuel was called, and Solomon gave his judgment, and Josiah carried out his reform. (Jos. Antt. II. 9. 6, v. 10. 4.)
Verse 43
43. τελειωσάντων τὰς ἡμέρας. Seven days. Exodus 12:15.
Ἰησοῦς ὁ παῖς. The boy Jesus, or Jesus, now a boy. There is an obvious contrast with the παιδίον of Luke 2:40. St Luke seems purposely to have narrated something about the Saviour at every stage of His earthly existence, as babe (Luke 2:16), little child (Luke 2:40), boy, and man.
ὑπέμεινεν. Among the countless throngs of Jews who flocked to the Passover—nearly three millions according to Josephus (Antt. VI. 9, 3)—nothing would be easier than to lose sight of one young boy in the thronged streets, or among the thousands of booths outside the city walls. Indeed it is an incident which to this day often occurs at Jerusalem in similar cases. It should be also remembered that at the age of 12 an Eastern boy is far more mature than is the case in Northern nations, and that at that age a far wider liberty was allowed him.
οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ. ‘His parents,’ א BDL. The reading of Elz. is “Joseph and his mother.”
οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, ‘did not observe it.’ The fact is very interesting as shewing the naturalness and unconstraint in which our Lord was trained.
Verse 44
44. ἦλθον ἡμέρας ὁδόν. Probably to Beeroth, six miles north of Jerusalem. In the numerous and rejoicing caravans of kinsmen and fellow-countrymen relations are often separated without feeling any anxiety.
ἀνεζήτουν, ‘continued looking for him.’ The word implies anxious and careful search.
Verse 45
45. μὴ εὑρόντες. The μὴ is causal. ‘Since they did not find Him,’ they returned.
ἀναζητοῦντες αὐτόν, ‘diligently searching for Him.’
Verse 46
46. μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς. This, in the Jewish idiom, probably means ‘on the third day.’ One day was occupied by the journey to Beeroth; on the second, they sought Him in the caravans and at Jerusalem; the next day they found Him in the Temple. The unsettled state of the country would add to their alarm.
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. Probably in one of the numerous chambers which ran round the Court, and abutted on the actual building; or in one of the three Temple-synagogues of which the Talmud speaks.
καθεζόμενον. Doubtless at the feet of the Rabbis, as was the custom of Jewish boys when sitting began to be permitted.
ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλων, ‘in the midst of the teachers.’ The most eminent Rabbis of this period—some of whom may have been present as youths, and some as aged men—were Hillel, his rival Shammai, and his son Rabban Shimeon, Bava ben Butah, Nicodemus, Jochanan ben Zakkai.
ἀκούοντα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπερωτῶντα αὐτούς. Obviously with all modest humility. The Apocryphal Gospels characteristically degrade this scene, and represent the boy Christ as behaving with a forwardness which most flagrantly contradicts the whole tenor of the narrative, and would have been specially displeasing to Jewish elders (Pirke Avôth, v. 12. 15). Such inventions, which are only too common in all commentators, from the days of the Fathers downward, spring from an irreverent reverence which has its real root in Apollinarianism.
Verse 47
47. ἐξίσταντο. Similar instances are narrated of Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah; of Rabbi Ashi, the compiler of the Babylonian Talmud; and (by himself) of Josephus (Vit. 2). See Excursus VII.
Verse 48
48. ἐξεπλάγησαν. The “people of the land,” such as were the simple peasants of Galilee, held their great teachers in the deepest awe, and hitherto the silent, sweet, obedient childhood of Jesus had not prepared them for such a scene.
τέκνον, τί ἐποίησας ἡμῖν οὕτως; ‘My child, why didst thou treat us thus?’
ὀδυνώμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε, ‘were searching for thee with aching hearts.’
Verse 49
49. ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, ‘in my Father’s house.’ The Syriac, Origen, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Euthymius agree in this rendering. The Vulg[68] (like the Arabic and Aethiopic) leaves the meaning vague in his quae Patris mei sunt, and Wyclif follows the Vulgate “in those things that be of my Father.” See Excursus I. These words are very memorable as being the first recorded words of Jesus. They bear upon them the stamp of authenticity in their half-vexed astonishment, and perfect mixture of dignity and humility. It is remarkable too, that He does not accept the phrase “Thy father” which Mary had employed. “Did ye not know?” recalls their fading memory of Who He was; and the “I must” lays down the law of devotion to His Father by which He was to walk even to the Cross. Psalms 40:7-9. “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me and to finish His work,” John 4:34. For His last recorded words, see Acts 1:7-8.
τοῦ πατρός μου. This is the first germ of our Lord’s special revelation of the fatherhood of God. It is remarkable that Christ always says ὁ πατήρ μου (with the article) but teaches us to say πατὴρ ἡμῶν (without the article): e.g. in John 20:17 it is. “I ascend unto the Father of me and Father of you.” God is His Father in a different way from that in which He is ours. He is our Father only because He is His Father. See Pearson On the Creed, Art. i.
EXCURSUS I
ON THE MEANING OF ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου IN Luke 2:49 (THE FIRST RECORDED WORDS OF JESUS)
In my Life of Christ (I. 78) I deliberately adopted the rendering of the English Version, but my view of the meaning has since been changed by a monograph kindly sent me by the Rev. Dr Field of Norwich, from which I here borrow some illustrations.
It might seem that the words lose something of their force and beauty by the adoption of the rendering “in my Father’s house;” but we must remember [1] that they are the words of a young and guileless Boy who was “subject unto His parents;” [2] that they must be interpreted with reference to their context. Joseph and His mother might have known that He would be “about His Father’s business” without knowing where He was. The answer had reference to His mother’s gentle reproach about their agonising search for Him. His answer is “Why this search? might you not have conjectured that I was in my Father’s House?” The other meaning would therefore be less appropriate. It is also less supported. We have no exact instance of ἐν τοῖς τινος εἶναι meaning “to be about a person’s business,” though we have something like it, e.g. 1 Timothy 4:15 ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, and the Latin “totus in illis.” This idiom seems however to imply an absolute absorption which is not here intended. If the word ὅλος had been added the sense and the idiom would indeed have been clear, and there would have been a distant analogy to the phrase employed in the story that when the young Alexander talked with the Persian Ambassadors he did not ask about the Golden Vine, the king’s dress, &c. but “was entirely occupied with the most important matters of the government” (ὅλος ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις ἧν τῆς ἡγεμονίας) so that the strangers were amazed (ἐκπεπλῆχθαι), Plut. II. 342. But had our Lord meant to say ‘Know ye not that I must be absorbed in my Father’s work?’ He would have expressed His meaning less ambiguously, and if He spoke in Aramaic those who recorded the sentence in Greek would hardly have left the meaning doubtful.—On the other hand “in my Father’s House” is the ordinary and natural meaning of the words.—Οἰκήμασι or δώμασι might be understood, but in fact the article alone—τὰ, ‘the things or belongings of’—was colloquially used in this sense; e. g. ᾆ τὰ Λύκωνος (Theocr. II. 76), ‘where Lycon’s house is;’ εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ‘into my brother’s’ (Lysias c. Eratosth. p. 195), ἐν τοῖς τοῦ δεσπότου ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη (Chrysost. Hom. LII. in Gen.), ‘wherever he may chance to go he must be in his Master’s house.’ Esther 7:9, ἐν τοῖς Ἀμὰν, ‘in Haman’s house’ (LXX[425]); Job 18:20, ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ ζήσονται ἕτεροι, ‘others shall live in his house.’ See too Genesis 41:51, LXX[426] In this interpretation the Vulgate, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Peshito Syriac concur, as do Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret.
But it may be asked ‘may we not admit both meanings, one as primary and one as secondary?’ This is the view adopted by Alford and others; but I agree with Dr Field in the remark that “it is certain that only one of the meanings was in the mind of the artless Child from whose lips they fell, and that that meaning” (so far as the mere significance of the words was concerned) “was rightly apprehended by those who heard them.”
Verse 50
50. οὐ συνῆκαν. Words which might stand as the epitome of much of His ministry, Luke 9:45, Luke 18:34; Mark 9:32; John 10:6; John 1:10-11. The meaning however is not that they had any doubt as to what the grammatical construction of His words implied; but only as to their bearing and appropriateness to the circumstances of so young a child.
Verse 51
51. μετ' αὐτῶν. We may infer from the subsequent omission of Joseph’s name, and from the traditional belief about his age, that he died shortly after this event, as the Apocryphal Gospels assert.
εἰς Ναζαρέθ. In many respects there was a divine fitness in this spot for the human growth of Jesus—“as a tender plant and a root out of the dry ground.” Apart from the obscurity and evil fame of Nazareth which were meant to teach lessons similar to those of which we have just spoken, we may notice (i) Its seclusion. It lies in a narrow cleft in the limestone hills which form the boundary of Zabulon entirely out of the ordinary roads of commerce, so that none could say that our Lord had learnt either from Gentiles or from Rabbis. (ii) Its beauty and peacefulness. The flowers of Nazareth are famous, and the appearance of its inhabitants shews its healthiness. It was a home of humble peace and plenty. The fields of its green valley are fruitful, and the view from the hill which overshadows it is one of the loveliest and most historically striking in all Palestine.
ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος αὐτοῖς. See note on Luke 1:10. “He made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:7; Isaiah 53:2. With the exception of these two verses, the Gospels preserve but one single word to throw light on the Life of our Lord, between His infancy and His baptism. That word is “the carpenter” in Mark 6:3, altered in some MSS. out of irreverent and mistaken reverence into “the son of the carpenter.” They shew that (i) our Lord’s life was spent in poverty but not in pauperism; (ii) that He sanctified labour as a pure and noble thing; (iii) that God looks on the heart, and that the dignity or humility, the fame or obscurity, of the outer lot is of no moment in His eyes. Romans 14:17-18.
Verse 52
52. προέκοπτεν, ‘advanced.’ (Galatians 1:14; 2 Timothy 2:16, &c.) The word is derived from pioneers cutting down trees in the path of an advancing army. Comp. 1 Samuel 2:26, and the description of an ideal youth in Proverbs 3:3-4.
σοφίᾳ. In spite of the attempts, from the days of Athanasius downwards, to explain this word away, it remains one of the great Scriptural bulwarks against the Apollinarian heresy which denies the perfect manhood of Christ.
ἡλικίᾳ. Perhaps ‘age’ (as in Luke 12:25?), though the word sometimes means stature (Luke 19:3; Ephesians 4:13), and it is so understood in this place by Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Ewald, Bleek, Meyer, &c. The Vulg[69] has aetate.
ἀνθρώποις, ‘men.’ Proverbs 3:4, “So shalt thou find favour and good success (marg.) in the sight of God and man.” Pirke Avôth, III. 10, “In whomsoever the mind of men delights, in him also the Spirit of God delights.” It is not said of St John that he grew in favour with men, because even from childhood he shewed the stern and reserved spirit which took him to the wilderness.
03 Chapter 3
Verse 1
1. ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος. St Luke here gives a sixfold intimation of the date,—a method characteristic of his learned and careful research. If the accession of Tiberius be dated from the death of Augustus, Aug. 19, A.U.C. 767, this would make our Lord thirty-two at His baptism. St Luke, however, follows a common practice in dating the reign of Tiberius from the period of his association with Augustus as joint Emperor A.U.C. 765. (Tac. Ann. I. 3; Suet. Aug. 97; Vell. Paterc. 103.) Our Lord’s baptism thus took place in a.u.c. 780. By thus giving precise dates St Luke becomes, as Ewald says, “the first writer who frames the Gospel History into the great history of the world.”
τῆς ἡγεμονίας. Wieseler (Beiträge 191) is perhaps hypercritical in seeing in this word an indication that only the regency of Tiberius is implied; but he shews from coins and medals that at Antioch (the probable home of St Luke) it was customary to date the accession of Tiberius from A.U.C. 765.
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος. Winer takes Καίσαρος to be an appellative—“of Tiberius as Emperor” (Winer, p. 173). Tiberius was the stepson and successor of Augustus. At this period of his reign he retired to the island of Capreae (Tac. Ann. IV. 74), where he plunged into horrible private excesses, while his public administration was most oppressive and sanguinary. The recent attempts to defend his character break down under the accumulated and unanimous weight of ancient testimony.
Ποντίου Πιλάτου. He was Procurator for ten years, A.D. 25–36). His predecessors had been Coponius (A.D. 6–10), M. Ambivius, Annius Rufus, and Valerius Gratus (A.D. 14–25). He was succeeded by Marcellus, Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Festus, Albinus and Florus. For an account of him see on Luke 23:1.
ἡγεμονεύοντος. His strict title was ἐπίτροπος or Procurator (Jos. Antt. xx. 6, § 2), which does not however occur in the N. T. except in the sense of ‘steward’ (Luke 8:3). Ἠγεμών was a more general term. (Matthew 10:18; 1 Peter 2:14.) His relation to the Herods was much the same as that of the Viceroy of India to the subject Maharajahs.
Ἡρώδου. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan lady Malthace. He retained his kingdom for more than 40 years, at the end of which he was banished (A.D. 39) to Lugdunum (probably St Bertrand de Comminges), chiefly through the machinations of his nephew Herod Agrippa I. (the Herod of Acts 12:1). See the Stemma Herodum on p. li, and for further particulars of his character see on Luke 13:32.
τετραρχοῦντος. The word properly means the ruler of a fourth part of a country, but afterwards was used for any tributary prince or ethnarch. At this time Judaea, Samaria and Galilee were the provinces of Palestine. Antipas, Philip and Lysanias are the only three to whom the word ‘tetrarch’ is applied in the N. T. Antipas also had the courtesy-title of ‘king’ (Mark 6:14, &c.), and it was in the attempt to get this title officially confirmed to him that he paid the visit to Rome which ended in his banishment. He was tetrarch from B.C. 4 to A.D. 39. Herod the Great, in his will, divided his kingdom between Archelaus as ethnarch, and Antipas and Philip as tetrarchs.
τῆς Γαλιλαίας. This province is about 25 miles from North to South, and 27 from East to West,—about the size of Bedfordshire. Lower Galilee included the district from the plain of Akka to the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and was mainly composed of the rich plain of Esdraelon (or Jezreel). Upper Galilee included the mountain range between the upper Jordan and Phoenicia. Galilee was thus the main scene of our Lord’s ministry. It was surpassingly rich and fertile (Jos. B. J. I. 15, 5, III. 10, §§ 7, 8). See on Luke 1:26. Herod’s dominions included the larger though less populous district of Peraea; but the flourishing towns of Decapolis (Gerasa, Gadara, Damascus, Hippos, Pella, &c.) were independent.
Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ. Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra, who afterwards married his niece Salome, daughter of the other Herod Philip (who lived in a private capacity at Rome) and of his half-sister-in-law Herodias. This tetrarch seems to have been the best of the Herods (Jos. Antt. XVII. 2, § 4), and the town of Caesarea Philippi which he beautified was named from him. He also changed the name of the northern Bethsaida into Julias after the miserable daughter of Augustus. He was a devoted adherent of the Caesars but so just and generous that “in his person it is possible to become reconciled to the House of Herod.” (See Jos. B. J. II. 9, 1. 6; Antt. XVIII. 4, § 6; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. v. 46; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. 206.) He reigned 37 years.
Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας. His tetrarchate also included Batanaea (Bashan), Auranitis (the Hauran), Gaulanitis (Golân), and some parts about Jamnia (Jos. B. J. II. 6, § 3). Ituraea (now Jedûr) was at the foot of Mount Hermon, and was named from Jetur, son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:15-16). The Ituraeans were marauders, famous for the use of the bow, and protected by their mountain fastnesses. (Strabo, XVI. 2; Lucan, Phars. VII. 230.) Trachonitis, also a country of robbers (Jos. Antt. XVI. 9, §§ 1, 2), is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Argob (a region about 22 miles from N. to S. by 14 from W. to E.), and means ‘a rough or stony tract.’ It is the modern province of el-Lejâh, and the ancient kingdom of Og—“an ocean of basaltic rocks and boulders, tossed about in the wildest confusion, and intermingled with fissures and crevices in every direction.” Herod Philip received this tetrarchate by bequest from his father (Jos. B. J. II. 6, § 3).
Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετραρχοῦντος. The mention of this minute particular is somewhat singular, but shews St Luke’s desire for at least one rigid chronological datum. It used to be asserted that St Luke had here fallen into another chronological error, but his probable accuracy has, in this point also, been completely vindicated. There was a Lysanias king of Chalcis under Mount Lebanon, and therefore in all probability tetrarch of Abilene, in the days of Antony and Cleopatra, 60 years before this period (Jos. Antt. XV. 4, § 1, B. J. I. 13, § 1); and there was another Lysanias, probably a grandson of the former, in the reigns of Caligula and Claudius, 20 years after this period (Jos. Antt. XV. 4, § 1). No intermediate Lysanias is recorded in history, but there is not a shadow of proof that the Lysanias here mentioned may not be the second of these two, or more probably some Lysanias who came between them, perhaps the son of the first and the father of the second. Even M. Renan admits that after reading at Baalbek the inscription of Zenodorus (Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Graec. no. 4521, Jos. B. J. II. 6, § 31) he infers the correctness of the Evangelist (Vie de Jésus, p. xiii.; Les Évangiles, p. 263). It is indeed, on the lowest grounds, inconceivable that so careful a writer as St Luke should have deliberately gone out of his way to introduce so apparently superfluous an allusion at the risk of falling into a needless error. Lysanias is perhaps mentioned because he had Jewish connexions (Jos. Antt. XIV. 7, § 4). The minuteness of the effort to fix the date marks St Luke as a true historian, and Keim only shews the prejudice of hostile criticism when he asserts (Gesch. Jesu, I. 619) that “there never was but one historical Lysanias.” Augustus was fond of restoring kingdoms to young princes, whose fathers Antony had murdered, as he did to the young Iamblichus of Emesa (Godet). It may however be doubted whether St Luke meant to draw attention to the dismemberment of the Holy Land.
τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς. Abila was a town 18 miles from Damascus and 38 from Baalbek. The district of which it was the capital is probably here mentioned because it subsequently formed part of the Jewish territory, having been assigned by Caligula to his favourite Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 36. The name is derived from Abel ‘a meadow.’
Verses 1-9
Luke 3:1-9. BAPTISM AND PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
Verse 2
2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα. ‘In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,’ for the true reading is undoubtedly ἀρχιερέως (א ABCDE, &c.). A similar expression occurs in Acts 4:6. But here St Luke is charged (on grounds as untenable as in the former instances) with yet another mistake. Annas or Hanan the son of Seth had been High Priest from A.D. 7–14, and had therefore, by this time, been deposed for many years; and his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas, the fourth High Priest since his deposition, had been appointed about A.D. 24. The order had been as follows:—
Annas or Ananus (Hanan), A.D. 7.
Ishmael Ben Phabi, A.D. 15.
Eleazar son of Annas, A.D. 15.
Simon son of Kamhith, A.D. 16.
Joseph Caiaphas, A.D. 24 or 25.
How then can Annas be called High Priest in A.D. 27? The answer is (i.) that by the Mosaic Law the High Priesthood was held for life (Numbers 35:25), and since Annas had only been deposed by the arbitrary caprice of the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus he would still be legally and religiously regarded as High Priest by the Jews (Numbers 35:25); (ii.) that he held in all probability the high office of Sagan haccohanim ‘deputy’ or ‘chief’ of the Priests (2 Kings 25:18), or of Nasi ‘President of the Sanhedrin,’ or at least of the Ab Beth Dîn, who was second in the Sanhedrin; (iii.) that the nominal, official, High Priests of this time were mere puppets of the civil power, which appointed and deposed them at will in rapid succession, so that the title was used in a looser sense than in earlier days; (iv.) that Annas was personally a man whose age, wealth, and connexions gave him a preponderant influence. The real sacerdotal power was his. The High Priesthood was in fact at this time in the hands of a clique of some half-dozen Herodian, Sadducaean and alien families, whose ambition it was to bear the title for a time without facing the burden of the necessary duties. Hence any one who was unusually prominent among them would naturally bear the title of ‘High Priest’ in a popular way, especially in such a case as that of Hanan, who, besides having been High Priest, was a man of vast wealth and influence, so that five also of his sons, as well as his son-in-law, became High Priests after him. The language of St Luke and the Evangelists (John 11:49) is therefore in strict accordance with the facts of the case in attributing the High Priesthood at this epoch rather to a caste than to a person. Josephus (B. J. II. 20, § 4) who talks of “one of the High Priests” and the Talmud which speaks of “the sons of the High Priests” use the same sort of language. There had been no less than 28 of these phantom High Priests in 107 years (Jos. Antt. XX. 10, § 1), and there must have been at least five living High Priests and ex-High Priests at the Council that condemned our Lord. The Jews, even in the days of David, had been familiar with the sort of co-ordinate High Priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar. For the greed, rapacity and luxury of this degenerate hierarchy, see Life of Christ, II. 329, 330, 342.
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Mainly, as appears from the next verse, the Arabah, the sunken valley north of the Dead Sea—el Ghôr—“the deepest and hottest chasm in the world” (Humboldt, Cosmos, I. 150), where the sirocco blows almost without intermission. “A more frightful desert it had hardly been our lot to behold” (Robinson, Researches, II. 121). See it described by Mr Grove in Smith’s Bibl. Dict. s.v. Arabah. The stern aspect and terrible associations of the spot had doubtless exercised their influence on the mind of John. See on Luke 1:80.
Verse 3
3. ἦλθεν. St Luke alone mentions the mission journeys of John the Baptist; the other Evangelists, whose narratives (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; John 1:15; John 1:28) should be carefully compared with that of St Luke, describe how the multitudes “came streaming forth” to him.
πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. The other Synoptists use exactly the same phrase, but in a different connexion (Matthew 3:5; Mark 1:5). The Arabah is some 150 miles in extent; the actual river-valley, specified in the O. T. by the curious words Kikkar and Geliloth (see Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 284), is not so extensive.
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Comp. Acts 2:38; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:31; Acts 22:16; where the two expressions are also united. ΄ετανοία involves “amendment of life” (A. V[78] marg.) The baptism of John was “a baptism of repentance,” not yet “a laver of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). It was intended first as a symbol of purification—“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,” Ezekiel 36:25; (comp. Isaiah 1:16; Zechariah 13:1); and then as an initiation into the kingdom which was at hand. The Jews had been familiar with the symbolism of baptism from the earliest days, as a consecration (Exodus 29:4), and a purification (Leviticus 14:8). It was one of the forms by which proselytes were admitted into Judaism. John’s adoption of this rite proved (i) his authority (John 1:25); and (ii) his opinion that even Jews needed to be thus washed from sins.
Verse 4
4. Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου. Isaiah 40:3.
[λέγοντος.] This word should be omitted with א BDL, &c.
φωνή. ‘A voice.’ The Hebrew original may be rendered “Hark, one crieth.” St Luke does not follow the other Synoptists in the identification of John with the promised Elias (Matthew 17:13; Mark 9:13).
βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Hence comes the common expression for hopeless warnings, vox clamantis in deserto. Probably, however, the “in the wilderness” should be attached to the words uttered by the voice, as is required by the parallelism of Hebrew poetry:
“Prepare ye in the wilderness a way for Jehovah,
Level in the desert a highway for our God.”
The wilderness is metaphorically the barren waste of the Jewish life in that day (Isaiah 35:1).
ὁδὸν κυρίου. Comp. Isaiah 35:8-10, “And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness: the unclean shall not pass over it … And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion.”
Verse 5
5. πᾶσα φάραγξ. Isaiah 40:4. The word occurs in Judith 2:8 but not again in the N. T. The metaphor is derived from pioneers who go before the march of a king. There is a remarkable parallel in Josephus (B. J. III. 6, § 2), where he is describing the march of Vespasian, and says that among his vanguard were “such as were to make the road even and straight, and if it were anywhere rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march (comp. προκόπτειν = ‘to advance’ in Luke 2:52), that the army might not be tired.” The Jews fabled that the Pillar of Cloud and Fire in the desert smoothed the mountains and filled the valleys before them. Tanchuma, f. 70, 3 on Numbers 20:22.
πᾶσα φάραγξ πληρωθήσεται. Isaiah 40:4-5. i.e. the humble and meek shall be exalted, and the mighty put down. Compare Isaiah 2:12-15, “The day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low … And upon all the high mountains, &c.” Zechariah 4:7, “Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain.”
βουνός. The word in the N. T. occurs only here and in Luke 23:30. It is a Cyrenaic word, first naturalised by Aeschylus who had learnt it in Sicily. It became common in Hellenistic Greek, see Valcknaer on Herod. IV. 158. Bähr on Herod. IV. 199.
ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείας. The words in the Hebrew recall the names Jacob and Jeshurun; as though it were “then the Supplanter shall be turned into Prince with God” or “the beloved” (Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 11:4). The general meaning of the prophecy is that no obstacles, whether they arose from depression, or power, or pride, or cunning perversity, or menacing difficulties, should be able to resist the labours of the Pioneers and Heralds of the Kingdom of God. The feeble instrumentality of Galilaeans should be strengthened; the power of the Romans and Herods should be shattered; the duplicity and plots of Pharisees and worldlings should be defeated; the apparently insuperable opposition of Judaism and Heathenism be swept away.
Verse 6
6. ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. St Luke alone adds these words to the quotation, and his doing so is characteristic of his object, which was to bring out the universality of the Gospel. See Luke 2:10, Luke 24:47, and Introd. p. xxiv. “The salvation” is τὸ σωτήριον, as in Luke 2:30. When the mountains of earthly tyranny and spiritual pride are levelled, the view of God’s saving power becomes clear to all flesh.
Verse 7
7. τοῖς ὄχλοις, ‘to the multitudes.’ Different crowds came from different directions, Matthew 3:5; Mark 1:5. This discourse falls into three sections [1] the warning (7–9); [2] the practical exhortation (10–14); [3] the Announcement of the Messiah (15–17).
γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, ‘broods of vipers.’ They were like “serpents born of serpents.” The comparison was familiar to Hebrew poetry (Psalms 68:4; Isaiah 14:9), and we learn from Matthew 3:7 that it was specially pointed at the Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom it was addressed no less sternly by our Lord (Matthew 23:33). It described the venomous hypocrisy which turned religion itself into a vice, and hid a deadly malice under the glittering semblance of a zeal for orthodoxy. St John saw that, without any real belief in his message and ministry, they were coming to his baptism as to a mere external official act. His question shews his disbelief in their sincerity (Matthew 21:25). But let it be borne in mind that only teachers of transcendent holiness, and immediately inspired by God with fervency and insight, may dare to use such language. The metaphor was one of those desert symbols which would be suggested to St John both by the scene of his preaching and by the language of Isaiah with which he shews special familiarity.
ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς. i.e. the approaching Messianic judgment. Romans 2:5. Apart from this expression of the Baptist, the word ὀργή only occurs three times in the four Gospels. The Jews had been taught by prophecy that the Advent of their Deliverer should be preceded by a time of anguish which they called “the Woes of the Messiah;” comp. Malachi 3:2, “Who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap.” Id. Luke 4:1 “Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Such prophecies received their primary fulfilment at the Destruction of Jerusalem (see Matthew 24:28; Mark 13:19-20); and await their final fulfilment hereafter. Revelation 6:16.
Verse 8
8. ποιήσατε. The verb implies instant effort. “Produce at once.”
μὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν. He cuts off even all attempt at self-excuse. ‘Do not allow yourselves to say.’ The ἄρξησθε is almost like ‘Do not harp on the old boast’ (Das alte Lied anfangen). St Matthew has μὴ δόξητε, ‘do not deceive yourselves on the subject by a mere illusion.’
πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ. ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ The Jews had so exalted a conception of this privilege (John 8:39) that they could scarcely believe it possible that any son of Abraham should ever be lost. This is seen in many passages of the Talmud, which maintain that a “single Israelite is of more worth in God’s sight than all the nations of the world.” “Thou madest the world for our sakes. As for the other people … Thou hast said … that they are nothing but be like unto spittle, and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel … But we Thy people whom Thou hast called Thy firstborn, Thy only begotten, and Thy fervent lover, &c.” 2 Esdras 6:56-58. The Prophets had long ago warned them that privileges without duties were no protection (Jeremiah 7:3-4; Micah 3:11; Isaiah 48:2, &c.). Christ taught them that Abraham’s seed had no exclusive offer of salvation (Matthew 8:11-12; John 8:33-39), and it was a special part of the mission of St Paul to bring home to them that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel,” Romans 4:1; Romans 9:6-7; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:15.
ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων. He pointed to the rocky boulders, or the flints on the strand of Jordan, around him. He who had made Adam from the clay could make sons of Abraham from those stones (Bengel). St John’s imagery is that of the wilderness,—the rock, the serpent, the barren tree.
Verse 9
9. ἤδη … κεῖται. Literally, ‘already lies.’ The notion is that of a woodman touching a tree (πρὸς) with the edge of his axe to measure his blow before he lifts his arm for the sweep which fells it.
μὴ ποιοῦν, if it produce not. The μὴ points to a condition.
ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. Literally, “is being hewn down, and being cast.” It is almost impossible to reproduce in English the force of this use of the present. It is called the ‘praesens futurascens’ (see note on Luke 2:29), and is used in cases when the doom has been long uttered, and is, by the evolution of the natural laws of God’s dealings, in course of inevitable accomplishment. But we see from prophetic imagery that even when the tree has been felled and burned “the watchers and holy ones” may still have charge to leave the stump of it in the tender grass of the field that it may grow again, Daniel 4:25 : and we see from the express language of St Paul that the olive tree of Jewish life was not to be cut down and burned for ever (Romans 9, 10). A barren fig-tree was also our Lord’s symbol of the Jewish nation. Luke 13:6.
Verse 10
10. τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν; ‘What then are we to do?’ (Deliberative subjunctive). Compare the question of the multitude to Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37) and that of the Philippian jailor (Luke 16:30).
Verses 10-14
10–14. ANSWER OF THE BAPTIST TO THE MULTITUDE
Verse 11
11. ὁ ἔχων δύο χιτῶνας. St Luke alone preserves for us the details in this interesting section. Beyond the single upper garment (χιτών, ketoneth), and garment (ἱμάτιον) and girdle, no other article of dress was necessary. A second ‘tunic’ or ketoneth was a mere luxury, so long as thousands were too poor to own even one.
μεταδότω τῷ μὴ ἔχοντι. St Paul gave similar advice (2 Corinthians 8:13-15), and St James (Luke 2:15-17), and St John (1 John 3:17), because they had learnt this spirit from Christ. A literal fulfilment of it has often been represented by Christian Art in the “Charity of St Martin.”
βρώματα, ‘food.’ The word ‘meat’ has now acquired the specific sense of ‘flesh,’ which it never has in our E. V. For instance the “meat-offering” was generally an offering of flour and oil.
We may notice the following particulars respecting the preaching of the Baptist:
[1] It was stern, as was natural to an ascetic whose very aspect and mission were modelled on the example of Elijah. The particulars of his life, and dress, and food—the leathern girdle, the mantle of camel’s hair, the living on locusts and wild honey—are preserved for us by the other Evangelists, and they gave him that power of mastery over others which always springs from perfect self-control, and absolute self-abnegation. Hence “in his manifestation and agency he was like a burning torch; his whole life was a very earthquake; the whole man was a sermon.”
[2] It was absolutely dauntless. The unlettered Prophet of the Desert has not a particle of respect for the powerful Sadducees and long-robed luxurious Rabbis, and disdains to be flattered by their coming to listen to his teaching. Having nothing to hope from man’s favour, he has nothing to fear from man’s dislike.
[3] It shews remarkable insight into human nature, and into the needs and temptations of every class which came to him,—shewing that his ascetic seclusion did not arise from any contempt of, or a version to, his fellow men.
[4] It was intensely practical. Not only does it exclude all abstract and theological terms such as ‘justification,’ &c., but it says nothing directly of even faith, or love. In this respect it recalls the Old Testament, and might be summed up in the words of Balaam preserved in the prophet Micah, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8.
[5] Yet though it still belongs to the dispensation of the shadow it prophesies of the dawn. His first message was “Repent;” his second was “The kingdom of heaven is at hand:” and this message culminated in the words “Behold the Lamb of God,” which shewed that the Olam habba or ‘future age’ had already begun. These two great utterances “contain the two capital revelations to which all the preparation of the Gospel has been tending.” “Law and prophecy; denunciation of sin and promise of pardon; the flame which consumes and the light which consoles—is not this the whole of the covenant?” Lange.
[6] It does not claim the credentials of a single miracle. The glory and greatness of John the Baptist, combined with the fact that not a single wonder is attributed to him, is the strongest argument for the truth of the Gospels against the ‘mythical theory’ of Strauss, who reduces the Gospel miracles to a circle of imaginative legends devised to glorify the Founder of Christianity. At the same time this acknowledged absence of miraculous powers enhances our conception of the enormous moral force which sufficed, without a sign, to stir to its very depths the heart of a sign-demanding age.
[7] It had only a partial and temporary popularity. Rejected by the Pharisees who said that “he had a devil,” the Baptist failed to produce a permanent influence on more than a chosen few (John 5:35; Luke 7:30; Matthew 11:18; Matthew 21:23-27; Acts 18:25; Acts 19:3-4). After his imprisonment he seems to have fallen into neglect, and he himself felt from the first that his main mission was to prepare the way for another, and to decrease before him. He was “the lamp kindled and shining” (John 5:35) which becomes needless and ceases to be noticed when the sun has dawned.
Verse 12
12. τελῶναι, ‘tax-gatherers’ (without the article). The English word ‘publican’ is a corruption of the Latin publicani ‘farmers of the taxes.’ The Roman government did not collect its own taxes, but leased them out to speculators of the equestrian order, who were called publicani, and who made their own profit out of the transaction. These knights appointed subordinates, who from the unpleasant character of the task could only be secured from the lowest of the people. These officials were not only detested as the agents of an odious system, but also for their notorious malpractices. It is true that by an edict of Gaius (Caligula) the Jews were allowed, as perhaps they were allowed even at this earlier date, to pay a regular tribute which was not farmed out to the equestrian publicani (Jos. Antt. XIV. 10, § 5). But even then the actual collection of the tax had to be entrusted to underlings (see Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 78). A strict Jew could hardly force himself even to pay taxes, and therefore naturally looked with scorn and hatred on any Jew who could sink so low as to collect them. Hence in our Lord’s time the word “publican” had become proverbial, as expressive of the worst opprobrium (Matthew 18:17). The Jews were not however peculiar in their dislike of publicans. The Greeks too regarded the word as a synonym of ‘plunderer,’ and an ‘innocent publican’ was looked upon as a marvellous phenomenon (Suet. Vesp. I.). Suidas defines the life of a publican as “unrestrained plunder, unblushing greed, unreasonable pettifogging, shameless business.” The relation of the publicans to John is referred to in Matthew 21:32. See Luke 7:29.
διδάσκαλε, teacher. In Luke 8:24 we have Ἐπιστάτα, Master.
τί ποιήσωμεν; See Luke 3:10. We have the same question, but with the answer which was only possible after the Resurrection, in Acts 2:37; Acts 16:30; Acts 22:10.
Verse 13
13. μηδὲν πλέον … πράσσετε. The verb πράσσω (like πρᾶξις, see Luke 23:51; Colossians 3:9, &c.) is often used in a bad sense (Luke 23:41; John 3:2, &c.). The immodestia (i.e. the extravagant greed) of the publicans was their habitual sin, and later historians often allude to their cruel exactions (Caes. Bell. Civ. III. 32). The cheating and meddling for which Zacchaeus promised fourfold restoration (Luke 19:8) were universal among them.
Verse 14
14. ἐπηρώτων δὲ αὐτόν, ‘asked him.’ The imperfect tense however (as before in Luke 3:10) implies that such questions were put to him by bodies of soldiers in succession.
στρατευόμενοι, ‘soldiers on the march’ or on service. On what expedition these soldiers were engaged it is impossible to say. They cannot have been Roman soldiers, and were certainly not any detachment of the army of Antipas marching against his injured father-in-law Hareth (Aretas), ethnarch of Arabia, for their quarrel was long subsequent to this. The word στρατευόμενοι is less definite than στρατιῶται. Ewald supposes that they were a sort of police (gendarmerie) engaged in custom-house duties.
μηδένα διασείσητε. ‘Extort money by threats from no one.’ Διασείω, like the Latin concutio, is a technical word. It implies robbery and violence, and something of this sense is retained in the French ‘concussion’ (Littré s. v.). See 3 Maccabees 7:21.
συκοφαντήσητε. ‘Cheat by false accusation.’ The Greek word implies pettifogging charges on trivial grounds, and is the word from which sycophant is derived. The temptation of soldiers, strong in their solidarity, was to terrify the poor by violence, and undermine the rich by acting as informers. The best comment on the Baptist’s advice to them is the XVIth Satire of Juvenal, which is aimed at their brutality and threats.
ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑμῶν. Be content with your pay. This is a late meaning of the word ὀψώνια (Romans 6:23), which means in the first instance ‘boiled fish (ἕψω) eaten as a relish with meat.’ It is remarkable that the Baptist does not bid even soldiers to abandon their profession, but to serve God in it. This is important as shewing that he did not hold up the life of the hermit or the ascetic as a model or ideal for all. He evidently held, like the good St Hugo of Avalon, that “God meant us to be good men, not monks and hermits.” Josephus, when (Antt. XVIII. Luke 3:2) he sums up the teaching of the Baptist by saying that “he commanded the Jews to practise virtue both in righteousness to one another and piety to God,” rightly estimates the practical, but omits the prophetic side of his teaching.
Verse 15
15. προσδοκῶντος. The Messianic expectations of the day had reached the Gentiles, many of whom even at Rome and in high society were proselytes, or half proselytes, to Judaism.
διαλογιζομένων. ‘While they were reasoning.’ Vulg[79] cogitantibus omnibus.
μήποτε αὐτὸς εἴ ὁ Χριστός. ‘Whether haply he were not himself the Christ.’
Verses 15-20
15–20. THE MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENT. IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN
Verse 16
16. ἀπεκρίνατο. The answer, as we find from John 1:19-28, was given in its most definite form to a Pharisaic deputation of Priests and Levites, who were despatched by the Sanhedrin expressly to ask him to define his claims.
ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου. ‘The stronger than I’ (comp. Luke 8:27).
λῦσαι. St Mark adds the graphic touch κύψας, ‘to stoop and untie.’ In Matthew 3:11 it is ‘to carry (βαστάσαι) his sandals;’ i.e. I am not adequate to be his humblest slave.
τὸν ἱμάντα, i.e. the thong. The word ‘latchet’ now obsolete in this sense, is from the same root perhaps as the Latin laqueus (Ital. laccio, Portug. lazzo, old French lacs, Fr. lacet, Engl. lace).
τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ. Of his sandals. The αὐτοῦ after οὗ is a pleonasm. Comp. οἷ τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ, 1 Peter 2:24. The idiom is common in Hellenistic Greek, but is also classical, as in Herod. IV. 44, &c. “Christ which that is to every wound triacle.” Chaucer. See Brief Greek Syntax, § 102.
ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. ‘In the Holy Spirit and fire.’ The preposition ἐν distinguishes between the mere instrumentality of the water, and the spiritual element whereby and wherein the child of the kingdom is baptized. This baptism by the Spirit had been foretold in Isaiah 44:3; Joel 2:28. Its first obvious fulfilment was at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; Acts 2:3) and in subsequent outpourings after baptism (Acts 11:15-16). But it is fulfilled without visible supernatural signs to all Christians (1 Corinthians 6:11); “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” 1 Corinthians 12:13). At the same time Acts 19:2 shews that we must not attribute to the Baptist any clear view of the Holy Ghost as a Person.
καὶ πυρί. In its first and most literal sense the allusion is to the fiery tongues of Pentecost (Acts 2:3); but the secondary and metaphoric allusion is to the burning zeal and illuminating light of the Spirit. St Jerome sees a further allusion to fiery trials (Luke 12:49; Mark 9:49; 1 Peter 4:12) and to the fire of judgment (1 Corinthians 3:13); but these allusions cannot be regarded as certain.
Verse 17
17. τὸ πτύον. ‘Winnowing-fan.’ The Latin vannus, a great shovel with which corn was thrown up against the wind to separate it from the chaff.
ἅλωνα. ‘Threshing-floor.’ The word is the same as that from which our halo is derived, since the threshing-floors of the ancients were circular.
εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αὐτοῦ. Compare Matthew 13:30, “gather the wheat into my barn.”
τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον. The word includes straw and stubble. We find similar metaphors in Psalms 1:4, “the ungodly … are like the chaff;” Malachi 4:1, “all that do wickedly shall be stubble;” Jeremiah 15:7, “I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land.” So far as the allusion is to the separation of good from evil elements in the Church we find similar passages in Matthew 13:30; 1 John 2:19, &c. But it may refer also to the destruction of the evil elements in a mixed character, as in Luke 22:31, “Simon … Satan hath desired to have you (ὑμᾶς), that he may sift you as wheat.”
κατακαύσει. He shall burn up.
Verse 18
18. πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἕτερα. Literally, ‘Many things too, different from these;’ of which some are recorded by St John alone (Luke 1:29; Luke 1:34, Luke 3:27-36).
εὐηγγελίζετο. Literally, ‘he was preaching the Good Tidings.’ With the phrase εὐηγγελίζετο τὸν λαόν compare Acts 8:25; Acts 8:40; Acts 16:10. The verb has two accusatives (one being the cognate accusative) in Acts 13:22. It is found with the dative in Luke 4:18; Romans 1:15, &c. The accusative indicates the direction of the verbal action, and is involved in the notion of teaching.
Verse 19
19. ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης ὁ τετράρχης. The incident which follows is here introduced by anticipation, that the subsequent narrative may not be disturbed. We find similar anticipatory notices in Luke 1:66; Luke 1:80. It should be compared with the fuller notice in Mark 6:17-20; Matthew 14:3-5. From these passages we learn that John had reproved Antipas for many crimes, and that Antipas was so convinced of his holiness and justice as habitually to listen to him with pleasure (ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν), and after paying earnest heed to him was greatly at a loss about him. We learn further that he resisted the constant urgency of Herodias to put him to death.
ἐλεγχόμενος. The reproof was of course based on Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21, and was perfectly uncompromising (Matthew 14:4). In this respect the dauntless courage of John, under circumstances of far greater peril, contrasts most favourably with the timid and unworthy concessions of the Reformers in the matter of the marriage of Philip of Hesse.
τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ. These words are omitted by some of the best uncials, and “Philip’s” by most of them. On this Herod Philip—who was not the tetrarch of that name—see on Luke 3:1.
Verse 20
20. προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσιν. ‘Added this also to all his crimes.’ The Jews as well as St Luke regarded the treatment of the Baptist by Antipas as the worst of his crimes, and the cause of his subsequent defeat and disgrace (Jos. Antt. XVIII. 5, 1–4).
κατέκλεισεν. The sentences are simply paratactic. In a more classical passage this clause would have been made subordinate, by ὥστε with the infinitive or some similar construction.
ἐν φυλακῇ. If the reading ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ were correct it would mean “in his prison.” Comp. Luke 7:18. This prison, as we learn from Josephus (Antt. XVIII. 5, § 2), was the stern and gloomy fortress of Makor or Machaerus, on the borders of Arabia to the north of the Dead Sea. It is situated among black basaltic rocks and was believed to be haunted by evil demons. Its ruins have been visited in recent years by Canon Tristram (Land of Moab, p. 259) and other travellers, and dungeons are still visible of which one may have witnessed the great prophet’s tragic end.
Verse 21
21. ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαόν. ‘When all the people had been baptized,’ not ‘were being baptized’ as Meyer renders it. Or we may explain the baptism of all the people as one circumstance, and render ‘on the baptism of all the people.’ The expression (which is peculiar to St Luke) seems to imply that on this day Jesus was baptized last; and from the absence of any allusion to the multitude in this and the other narratives we are almost forced to conjecture that His baptism was in a measure private. St Luke’s narrative must be supplemented by particulars derived from St Matthew (Matthew 3:13-17), who alone narrates the unwillingness of the Baptist, and the memorable conversation between him and Jesus. St Mark (Mark 1:9-11) mentions that Jesus went into the river, and that it was He who first saw the cleaving heavens, and the Spirit descending.
καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος. Our Lord Himself, in reply to the objection of the Baptist, stated it as a reason for His Baptism that “thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness;” i.e. that it was His will to observe all the requirements of the Mosaic law, which He came “not to destroy but to fulfil.” Other reasons have also been suggested, as (i) that He baptized (as it were) the water—“to sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin” (Ignat. ad Eph. 18; Maxim. Serm. 7, de Epiphan.; Ps. Aug. Serm. 135. 4); or (ii) that He was baptized as it were vicariously, as Head of His body, the Church (Just. Mart. c. Tryph. 88); or (iii) as a consecration of Himself to His work, followed by the special consecration from the Father; or (iv) as a great act of humility (St Bernard, Serm. 47, in Cant.). See my Life of Christ, I. 117 n. This aorist participle of the single act is followed by the pres. participle of the continuous act.
καὶ προσευχομένου. This deeply interesting touch is peculiar to St Luke, who similarly on eight other occasions calls attention to the Prayers of Jesus—after severe labours (Luke 5:16); before the choosing of the Apostles (Luke 6:12); before Peter’s great confession (Luke 9:18); at His transfiguration (Luke 9:28-29); for Peter (Luke 22:32); in Gethsemane (Luke 22:41); for His murderers (Luke 23:34); and at the moment of death (Luke 23:46). St Luke also represents the duty and blessing of urgent prayer by the record of two peculiar parables—the Importunate Friend (Luke 11:5-13) and the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:2). See Introd. p. xxxii.
Verses 21-38
21–38. THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. THE GENEALOGY
Verse 22
22. καταβῆναι. This was seen by John the Baptist (John 1:34) and by Jesus (Mark 1:10), but not (apparently) by others.
σωματικῷ εἴδει. This addition is peculiar to St Luke, and is probably added to shew the distinctness and reality of what Theodoret calls the ‘spiritual vision’ (πνευματικὴ θεωρία).
ὡς περιστεράν. The expression ὡς or ὡσεὶ used by each of the Evangelists, and St John’s “and it abode upon Him” (John 1:32), sufficiently prove that no actual dove is intended. The Holy Spirit is symbolised by a dove from early times. The Talmudic comment on Genesis 1:2 is that “the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters like a dove”—
“And with mighty wings outspread
Dovelike sat’st brooding on the vast abyss.”
MILTON (Par. Lost, I. 20).
Comp. 2 Esdras 5:26, “of all the fowls that are created thou hast named thee one dove.” Matthew 10:16. A mystical reason was assigned for this in some fathers, because the numerical value of the letters of the Greek word peristera, ‘a dove,’ amounts to 801, which is also the value of Alpha Omega. We are probably intended to understand a dovelike, hovering, lambent flame descending on the head of Jesus; and this may account for the unanimous early legend that a fire or light was kindled in Jordan (Just. Mart. c. Tryph. 88, and the Gospel of the Hebrews; see Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 13). Other Apocryphal Gospels (the Gospel of the Nazarenes, &c.) added other incidents obviously fictitious.
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. ‘Out of heaven.’ St Matthew has ἐξ οὐρανῶν because he follows the common Hebraism of using ‘the heavens’ (with reference to the seven heavens of the Rabbis) except when he alludes to heaven as a mere physical region. When he speaks of heaven as God’s abode (“Our Father which art in the heavens,” “The kingdom of the heavens,” “our Father from the heavens,” &c.) he uses the plural. St Luke only uses “heavens” four times, and St John not at all. See an excellent note in Humphry Rev. Version, p. 7. This Bath Kôl or Voice from heaven also occurred at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5) and in the closing week of Christ’s life (John 12:28-30). This is one of the passages which so distinctly imply the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.
εὐδόκησα. ‘I was well pleased.’ The word εὐδοκέω is a late and ill-formed word. Like καραδοκεῖν it violates the rule (“regium praeceptum Scaligeri”) that δυς and εὖ and the privative ἀ cannot be joined to verbs except through an intermediate substantive. See the rule explained in Brief Greek Syntax §§ 107, 108. Justin Martyr adds “This day have I begotten thee,” which is also found in D and the Itala, but is a mere gloss from Psalms 2:7.
Verse 23
23. αὐτός. For another instance of this distinctive and emphatic αὐτὸς see Luke 1:22; Matthew 3:4.
ἦν … ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα. ‘Was about thirty years of age on beginning (His work).’ So it was understood by Tyndale, but the A.V[80] followed Cranmer, and the Geneva. The translation of our A. V[81] is, however, ungrammatical, and a strange expression to which no parallel can be adduced. The word ἀρχόμενος standing absolutely for ‘when He began His ministry,’ is explained by the extreme prominency of this beginning in the thought of St Luke (see Acts 1:1; Acts 1:22), and his desire to fix it with accuracy. The age of 30 was that at which a Levite might enter on his full services (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:47), and the age at which Joseph had stood before Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46), and at which David had begun to reign (2 Samuel 5:4), and at which scribes were allowed to teach. It is the physical ἀκμὴ of life (Xen. Mem. I. Dion. Halicarn. IV. 6, Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 165).
ὡς ἐνομίζετο. “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Matthew 13:55; John 6:42.
On the genealogy which follows, and its relations to that in the Gospel of St Matthew, many volumes have been written, but in the Excursus I have endeavoured to condense all that is most important on the subject, and to give those conclusions which are now accepted by the most careful scholars. See Excursus II., The genealogies of Jesus in St Matthew and St Luke.
τοῦ Ἡλεί. It is a curious circumstance that in the Talmud (Chagig. 77) Mary is called the daughter of Eli; but it is a distortion of plain grammar to make this verse mean “being as was supposed, the son of Joseph [but in reality the son of Mary, daughter] of Eli.”
Verses 23-38
EXCURSUS II
THE DOUBLE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST AS THE SON OF DAVID
The general facts are these:
(i) The genealogy of our Lord in St Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews.
The genealogy in St Luke ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. He spans the generations of mankind from the first Adam to the Second Adam, who was the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47).
(ii) The generations are introduced in St Matthew by the word “begat;” in St Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” Thus in St Matthew we have
Abraham begat Isaac,
And Isaac begat Jacob, &c.;
but in St Luke
Being the son (as was reputed) of Joseph,
(The son) of Eli
of Matthat, &c.
|(iii) St Matthew says that | |St Luke (merely reversing the order) |
| | |traces the line through |
|David begat Solomon | |David |
|| | || |
|Rehoboam | |Nathan |
|| | || |
|Abijah | |Mattathah |
|| | || |
|Asa | |Menna |
|| | || |
|Jehoshaphat | |Meleah |
|| | || |
|Jehoram [Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah omitted] | |Eliakim |
|| | || |
|Uzziah | |Jonan |
|| | || |
|Jotham | |Joseph |
|| | || |
|Ahax | |Judas |
|| | || |
|Hezekiah | |Symeon |
|| | || |
|Manasseh | |Levi |
|| | || |
|Amos | |Matthat |
|| | || |
|Josiah | |Jorim |
|| | || |
|Jeconiah and his brethren | |Eliezer |
|| | || |
|Shealtiel | |Jesus |
|| | || |
|Zerubbabel | |Er |
| | || |
| | |Elmadam |
| | || |
| | |Kosam |
| | || |
| | |Adaiah |
| | || |
| | |Melchi |
| | || |
| | |Neriah |
| | || |
| | |Shealtiel |
| | || |
| | |Zerubbabel |
| | |(in 1 Chronicles 3:19 we find Pedaiah, who|
| | |was perhaps the actual father; Shealtiel |
| | |may have adopted his nephew1#1 Some |
| | |authorities maintain that Zerubbabel was |
| | |the grandson of Shealtiel, and that we |
| | |have six sons of Shealtiel in 1 Chronicles|
| | |3:18.#) |
Thus St Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel where St Matthew only gives 15, and all the names except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel) are different.
|(iv) St Matthew says that | |St Luke traces the line through |
|Zerubbabel begat Abihud | |Zerubbabel—[Rhesa] |
|| | || |
|Eliakim | |Johanan (Hananiah, 1 Chronicles 3:19). |
|| | || |
|Asor | |Judah (Abihud of Matthew, Hodaiah of 1 |
|| | |Chronicles 3:24). |
|Zadok | || |
|| | |Joseph |
|Achim | || |
|| | |Shimei |
|Elihud | || |
|| | |Mattathiah |
|Eliezer | || |
|| | |Mahath |
|Matthan | || |
|| | |Nogah |
|Jacob | || |
|| | |Azaliah |
|Joseph | || |
| | |Nahum |
| | || |
| | |Amos |
| | || |
| | |Mattathiah |
| | || |
| | |Joseph |
| | || |
| | |Jannai |
| | || |
| | |Melchi |
| | || |
| | |Levi |
| | || |
| | |Matthat |
| | || |
| | |Eli |
| | || |
| | |Joseph |
Thus it will be seen that St Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, where St Matthew only gives 9, and all the names are different.
The two main difficulties then which we have to meet are
A. The difference in the number of the generations;
B. The difficulties in the dissimilarity of the names.
A. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious, because [1] it is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another; but also because [2] St Matthew has arranged his genealogies in an arbitrary numerical division of three tesseradecads[427]. Nothing was more common among the Jews than the adoption of this symmetrical method, at which they arrived by the free omission of generations, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted. Thus in 2 Chronicles 22:9 “son” stands for “grandson,” and Ezra (in Ezra 7:1-5) omits no less than seven steps in his own pedigree, and among them his own father,—which steps are preserved in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. St Luke’s genealogy is tacitly arranged in eleven sevens.
B. The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph.
One of the commonest ways of meeting the difficulty has been to suppose that St Luke is giving the genealogy not of Joseph but of Mary—the genealogy of Christ by actual birth, not by legal claim.
This solution (first suggested by Annius of Viterbo at the close of the 15th century), though still adopted by some learned men, must be rejected, [1] because there is no trace that the Jews recognised the genealogies of women as constituting a legal right for their sons; and [2] because it would do the strongest violence to the language of St Luke to make it mean ‘Being, as was reputed, the son of Joseph [but really the son of Mary, who was the daughter] of Eli, &c.
We must therefore regard it as certain that both genealogies are genealogies of Joseph adduced to prove that in the eye of the Jewish law Jesus was of the House of David. The question is not what we should have expected about the matter, but what is actually the case.
1. First then, how can Joseph be called in St Matthew the son of Jacob, in St Luke the son of Eli?
(α) An ancient explanation was that Matthan, a descendant of David in the line of Solomon (as given by St Matthew) was the husband of a woman named Estha, and became the father of Jacob; on his death his widow Estha married Melchi, a descendant of David in the line of Nathan (as given by St Luke), and had a son named Eli. Eli, it is said, died childless, and Jacob, his half-brother, in accordance with the law of levirate[428] marriages (Deuteronomy 25:5-6; Matthew 22:23-27), took his widow to wife, and became the father of Joseph. Thus
St Luke might naturally give the latter genealogy because it would be the one recognised by Romans, with whom the notion of legal as distinguished from natural sonship was peculiarly strong. This solution derives very great authority from the fact that it is preserved for us by Eusebius (H. E. I. 7) from a letter of Julius Africanus, a Christian writer who lived in Palestine in the third century, and who professed to derive it from private memoranda preserved by ‘the Desposyni’ or kindred of the Lord.
(β) But the difficulty about this view—not to mention the strange omission of Levi and Matthat, which may be possibly due to some transposition—is that St Matthew’s genealogy will then be partly legal (as in calling Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah) and partly natural (in calling Joseph the son of Jacob). But perhaps (since Jul. Africanus does not vouch for the exact details) there was so far a confusion that it was Jacob who was childless, and Eli who became by a levirate marriage the father of Joseph. If this be so, then St Matthew’s is throughout the legal, and St Luke’s throughout the natural genealogy. Even without the supposition of a levirate marriage, if Jacob were childless then Joseph, the son of his younger brother Eli, would become heir to his claims. The tradition mentioned may point in the direction of the true solution even if the details are inexact.
(γ) We may here add that though the Virgin’s genealogy is not given (οὐκ ἐγενεαλογήθη ἡ παρθένος, S. Chrys.), yet her Davidic descent is assumed by the sacred writers (Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30; Acts 13:23; Romans 1:3, &c.), and was in all probability involved in that of her husband. How this was we cannot say with certainty, but if we accept the tradition which has just been mentioned it is not impossible that Mary may have been a daughter of Eli (as is stated in an obscure Jewish legend, Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.) or of Jacob, and may have married her cousin Joseph jure agnationis. At any rate we have decisive and independent proof that the Davidic descent of our Lord was recognised by the Jews. They never attempted to avert the jealousy of the Romans about the royal descent of the Desposyni (Euseb. H. E. I. 7), and Rabbi Ulla (circ. 210) says that “Jesus was exceptionally treated because of royal descent” (T. B. Sanhedr. 43 a, Amsterdam ed., see Derenbourg, Palest. p. 349. But it is possible that the words mean ‘influential with the (Roman) government’).
2. We have now to explain why St Matthew says that Shealtiel (Salathiel) was the son of Jeconiah, while St Luke says that he was the son of Neriah.
The old suggestion that the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel of St Luke are different persons from those of St Matthew may be set aside at once. But the true answer seems to be that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) was either actually childless, as was so emphatically prophesied by Jeremiah 22:24-30, or that, at any rate, his children (if he ever had any, as seems possible from Luke 3:28; 1 Chronicles 3:17-19; and Jos. Antt. X. 11, § 2) died childless in Babylon. It is true that the word rendered ‘childless’ (עֲרִירִי ) may mean ‘forlorn’ or ‘naked;’ but the other is the more natural meaning of the word, and so it was understood by the Jews, who however supposed that, after a long captivity, he repented and the curse was removed. Setting aside this mere conjecture, it seems probable that Jeconiah was, or became, absolutely childless, and that therefore in the 37th year of his captivity he adopted a son to preserve his race from extinction. His choice however was limited. Daniel and others of the seed royal were eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon (Daniel 1:3; 2 Kings 20:16), and Ishmael and others were excluded by their murder of Gedaliah; to say nothing of the fact that the royal line had been remorselessly mown down by Jehu and by Athaliah. He therefore adopted the seven sons of Neri, the twentieth from David in the line of Nathan. We seem to have an actual intimation of this in Zechariah 12:12, where “the family of Nathan apart” is commemorated as well as “the family of David apart” because of the splendid Messianic prerogative which they thus obtained. And this is remarkably confirmed by Rabbi Shimeon Ben Jochai in the Zohar, where he speaks of Nathan, the son of David, as the father of Messiah the Comforter (because Menachem, ‘comforter,’ stands numerically for 138, which is the numerical value of the letters of Tsemach, ‘the Branch’). Hence too Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan, is called the mother of the Messiah. (See Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. on Luke 1:31.)
The failure of the Messianic promise in the direct natural line of Solomon is no difficulty in the way of this hypothesis, since while the promise to David was absolute (2 Samuel 7:12) that to Solomon was conditional (1 Kings 9:4-5).
If these very simple and probable hypotheses be accepted no difficulty remains; and this at least is certain—that no error can be demonstrated. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of Kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St Matthew’s is a royal, St Luke’s a natural pedigree. It is a confirmation of this view that in Joseph’s private and real genealogy we find the names Joseph and Nathan recurring (with slight modifications like Matthat, &c.) no less than seven times. That there must be some solution of this kind is indeed self-evident, for if the desire had been to invent a genealogy no one would have neglected a genealogy deduced through a line of Kings.
3. i. We need only further notice that in Luke 3:27 the true translation probably is “the son of the Rhesa Zerubbabel.” Rhesa is not a proper name, but a Chaldee title meaning ‘Prince.’ Thus the head of the Captivity is always known by Jewish writers as the Resh Galootha.
ii. In Luke 3:32 we have only three generations—Boaz, Obed, Jesse—between Salmon and David; a decisive proof that the common chronology is wrong in supposing that more than four hundred years elapsed between the conquest of Canaan and David.
iii. In Luke 3:24 the Matthat is perhaps identical with the Matthan of Matthew 1:15; if so the line recorded by St Matthew may have failed at Eliezer, and Matthan, the lineal descendant of a younger branch, would then be his heir.
iv. In Luke 3:36 the Cainan (who must be distinguished from the Cainan of Luke 3:37) is possibly introduced by mistake. The name, though found in this place of the genealogy in the LXX[429], is not found in any Hebrew MS. of the O.T., nor in the Samaritan, Chaldee, and Syriac versions (Genesis 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24). It is omitted in the Codex Bezae (D), and there is some evidence that it was unknown to Irenaeus.
v. The difference between the two genealogies thus given without a word of explanation furnishes a strong probability that neither Evangelist had seen the work of the other.
The conclusions arrived at as probable may be thus summarized.
David’s line through Solomon failed in Jeconiah, who therefore adopted Shealtiel, the descendant of David’s line through Nathan.
(Shealtiel being also childless adopted Zerubbabel, son of his brother Pedaiah, 1 Chronicles 3:17-19.)
Zerubbabel’s grandson, Abihud (Matt.), Judah (Lk.), or Hodaiah (1 Chr.)—for the three names are only modifications of one another—had two sons, Eliakim (Matt.) and Joseph (Lk.).
Eliakim’s line failed in Eliezer; and thus Matthan or Matthat became his legal heir.
This Matthan had two sons, Jacob the father of Mary, and Eli the father of Joseph; and Jacob having no son adopted Joseph his heir and nephew.
It is true that these suggestions are not capable of rigid demonstration, but (α) they are entirely in accordance with Jewish customs; (β) there are independent reasons which shew that they are probable; (γ) no other hypotheses are adequate to account for the early existence of a double genealogy in Christian circles.
Verse 32
32. τοῦ Ἰωβήδ. א, La[73] Ti[74]
Verse 33
33. τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ. Omitted by D and by W.H[75]
τοῦ Ἀρνεί. א reads Ἀδάμ. BL, Ti[76] W.[77]. read τοῦ Ἀδμεὶν τοῦ Ἀρνεί.
04 Chapter 4
Verse 1
1. πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου. St Luke often calls special attention to the work of the Spirit, Luke 3:22, Luke 4:14; Acts 6:3; Acts 7:55; Acts 11:24. The expression alludes to the outpouring of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism, Luke 3:22. John 3:34. The narrative should be compared with Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13. St John, who narrates mainly what he had himself seen, omits the temptation.
ὑπέστρεψεν. ‘Went away.’
ἤγετο. The imperfect implies a continuous leading during all the forty days, as well as a continuous temptation. A divine impulse led him to face the hour of peril alone. St Mark uses the more intense expression, “immediately the Spirit driveth Him forth.” He only devotes two verses (Mark 1:12-13) to the Temptation, but adds the graphic touch that “He was with the wild beasts” (comp. Psalms 91:13), and implies the continuous ministration of angels (διηκόνουν) to Him.
ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. ‘In the Spirit,’ comp. Luke 2:27. Romans 8:14. The phrase emphasizes the “full of the Holy Ghost,” and has the same meaning as “in the power of the Spirit,” Luke 4:14.
“Thou Spirit, who ledd’st this glorious eremite
Into the desert, his victorious field
Against the spiritual foe, and brought’st Him thence
By proof the undoubted Son of God.”
MILTON, Par. Reg. 1.
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. ‘In (not ‘into’) the wilderness.’ He was ‘in the Spirit’ during the whole period as He wandered about. The scene of the temptation is supposed to be the mountain near Jericho, thence called Quarantania. The tradition is not ancient, but the site is very probable, being rocky, bleak, and repellent—
“A pathless desert, dusk with horrid shades.”
MILTON.
Scripture everywhere recognizes the need of solitude and meditation on the eve of great work for God (Exodus 24:2; 1 Kings 19:4; Galatians 1:17), and this would be necessary to the human nature of our Lord also.
Verses 1-13
Luke 4:1-13. THE TEMPTATION
Verse 2
2. ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα. The number was connected in the Jewish mind with notions of seclusion, and revelation, and peril;—Moses on Sinai, Exodus 34:18; Elijah, 1 Kings 19:8; the wanderings of the Israelites, Numbers 14:34; Judges 13:1.
πειραζόμενος. The present participle implies that the temptation was continuous throughout the forty days, though it reached its most awful climax at their close.
ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου. The Jews placed in the wilderness one of the mouths of Gehenna, and there evil spirits were supposed to have most power (Numbers 16:33; Matthew 12:43). St Mark uses the Hebrew form of the word—‘Satan.’ Both words mean ‘the Accuser,’ but the Greek Διάβολος is far more definite than the Hebrew Satan, which is loosely applied to any opponent, or opposition, or evil influence in which the evil spirit may be supposed to work (1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Corinthians 12:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:18). This usage is more apparent in the original, where the word rendered ‘adversary’ is often Satan, Numbers 22:22; 1 Samuel 29:4; 1 Kings 11:14, &c. On the other hand, the Greek word διάβολος is comparatively rare in the N.T. (The word rendered ‘devils’ for the ‘evil spirits’ of demoniac possession is δαιμόνια). St Matthew also calls Satan “the tempter.” Few suppose that the devil came incarnate in any visible hideous guise. The narrative of the Temptation could only have been communicated to the Apostles by our Lord Himself. Of its intense and absolute reality we cannot doubt; nor yet that it was so narrated as to bring home to us the clearest possible conception of its significance. The best and wisest commentators in all ages have accepted it as the symbolic description of a mysterious inward struggle. Further speculation into the special modes in which the temptations were effected is idle, and we have no data for it. Of this only can we be sure, that our Lord’s temptations were in every respect akin to ours (Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 2:18); that there was “a direct operation of the evil spirit upon His mind and sensibility;” that, as St Augustine says, “Christ conquered the tempter, that the Christian may not be conquered by the tempter.” All enquiries as to whether Christ’s sinlessness arose from a ‘possibility of not sinning’ (posse non peccare), or from an ‘impossibility of sinning’ (non posse peccare), are rash intrusions into the unrevealed. The Christian is content with the certainty that He “was in all points tempted (tried) like as we are, yet without sin” (see Hebrews 5:8). It is at least doubtful whether our Lord in any way referred to His own temptation in Luke 11:21-22.
οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδέν. St Matthew says more generally that ‘He fasted,’ and St Luke’s phrase probably implies no more than this (see Matthew 11:18). The Arabah at any rate supplied enough for the bare maintenance of life (Jos. Vit. 2), and at times of intense spiritual exaltation the ordinary needs of the body are almost suspended. But this can only be for a time, and when the reaction has begun hunger asserts its claims with a force so terrible that (as has been shewn again and again in human experience) such moments are fraught with the extremest peril to the soul. This was the moment which the Tempter chose. We rob the narrative of the Temptation of all its spiritual meaning unless in reading it we are on our guard against the Apollinarian heresy which denied the perfect Humanity of Christ. The Christian must keep in view two thoughts: 1. Intensely real temptation. 2. Absolute sinlessness. It is man’s trial ‘to feel temptation’ (sentire tentationem); Christ has put it into our power to resist it (non consentire tentationi). Temptation only merges into sin when man consents to it.
“’Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,
Another thing to fall.”—SHAKESPEARE.
The temptation must be felt or it is no temptation; but we do not sin until temptation really sways the bias of the heart, and until delight and consent follow suggestion. The student will find the best examition of this subject in Ullmann’s treatise On the sinlessness of Jesus (Engl. Transl.).
Verse 3
3. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος. St Luke says nothing about the devil ‘approaching Him’ (Matthew 4:3), and thereby wholly leaves on one side the question of any corporal appearance.
εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ. Doubtless an allusion to the divine Voice at His baptism (Luke 3:22). The same words were tauntingly addressed to our Lord on the Cross (Matthew 27:40). The Greek strictly means “Assuming that Thou art,” or “Since Thou art,” but in Hellenistic Greek words and phrases are not always used with their earlier delicate accuracy.
εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ. Say to this stone. The Greek implies that the Tempter called direct attention to a particular stone. In this desert there are loaf-shaped fossils known to early travellers as lapides judaici, and to geologists as septaria. Some of these siliceous accretions assume the shape of fruit, and are known as ‘Elijah’s melons’ (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 154). They were popularly regarded as petrified fruits of the Cities of the Plain. Such deceptive semblances would intensify the pangs of hunger, and add to the temptation the additional torture of an excited imagination. (See a sketch of such a septarium in the Illustrated Edition of my Life of Christ, p. 99.)
ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος. ‘That it may become a loaf.’ Here again we have the extended use of ἵνα in Hellenistic Greek which has been already noticed. The subtle malignity of the temptation is indescribable. It was a temptation to ‘the lust’ (i.e. the desire ‘of the flesh;’ a temptation to gratify a natural and blameless appetite; an appeal to free-will and self-will, closely analogous to the devil’s first temptation of the race. ‘You may; you can; it will be pleasant: why not?’ (Genesis 3:1-15). Yet it did not come in an undisguisedly sensuous form, but with the suggestive semblance of Scriptural sanctions (1 Kings 19:8; Deuteronomy 8:16; Psalms 78:19).
Verse 4
4. γέγραπται. The perfect means ‘it has been written,’ it standeth written as an eternal lesson. Jesus foils the Tempter as man for man. He will not say ‘I am the Son of God;’ He ‘does not consider equality with God a prize at which to grasp’ (Philippians 2:6), but seizes “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). Had our Lord yielded to the subtle sophistry of this temptation He would have been abnegating His humiliation, for He would have been leaving the ordinary path of human life, and the “obedience” which He learnt by the things which He suffered (Hebrews 5:8).
οὐκ ἐπ' ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος. The phrase ἐπ' ἄρτῳ (on bread) is chiefly Hellenistic. A classical writer would have used ἀπό. It is borrowed from the Hebrew חָיָה עַל . The quotation is from Deuteronomy 8:3, where Moses tells the people that God has suffered them to hunger, and fed them with manna, to shew them the dependence of man on God, and the fact that life is something more than the mere living, and can only be sustained by diviner gifts than those which are sufficient for man’s lower nature. Bread sustains the body; but, that we may live, the soul also, and the spirit must be kept alive. Exodus 16:4; Exodus 16:15; “They did all eat the same spiritual meat,” 1 Corinthians 10:3.
[ἀλλ' ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ.] These words, though implied, are probably added in this place from Matthew 4:4, since they are omitted by א BDL, and various versions. “Word” is not in the original Hebrew. The verse conveys a most deep truth, and by referring to it our Lord meant to say ‘God will support my needs in His own way, and the lower life is as nothing in comparison with the higher.’ There are many most valuable and instructive parallels; see John 4:32-34, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of … My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work.” Job 23:12, “I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food.” Jeremiah 15:16, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.” Wisdom of Solomon 16:6, “God’s word nourisheth man.” The Jewish Rabbis had the remarkable expression, “The just eat of the glory of the Shechinah.” Comp. John 6:27-63.
Verse 5
5. καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτόν. Probably “the devil” and “into a high mountain” are added from St Matthew. How the devil took Him up we are not told. Scripture, to turn away our thoughts from the secondary to the essential, knows nothing of those journeys through the air which we find in Apocrypha and in the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’
It is remarkable that St Luke (whom Milton follows in his Par. Regained) here adopts a different order of the temptations from St Matthew, perhaps because he thought that the temptation to spiritual pride (which he places third) was keener and subtler than that to temporal ambition; perhaps, too, because he believed that the ministering angels (whom however he does not mention) only appeared to save Christ from the pinnacle of the Temple. That the actual order is that of St Matthew is probable, because [1] he alone uses notes of sequence, “then,” “again;” [2] Christ closes the temptation by “Get thee behind me, Satan” (see on Luke 4:8); [3] as an actual Apostle he is more likely to have heard the narrative from the lips of Christ Himself. But in the chronology of spiritual crises there is little room for the accurate sequence of ‘before’ and ‘after.’ They crowd eternity into an hour, and stretch an hour into eternity. And psychologically St Luke’s order is the more correct, for the purely spiritual temptation to a proud exclusive challenge of God’s care was of a keener kind than the temptation to earthly ambition.
τῆς οἰκουμένης. See above on Luke 2:1.
ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου. ‘In a second’; comp. 1 Corinthians 15:52, “in the twinkling of an eye”—in the sudden flash of an instantaneous vision. It was as Bengel says ‘acuta tentatio,’ concentrated as it were into one intense spasm. The first temptation had been through a natural appetite; the second was through a patriotic aspiration; the third was purely religious. The splendour of the temptation, and the fact that it appealed to
“the spur which the clear spirit doth raise,
The last infirmity of noble minds,”
might seem to Satan to make up for its impudent, undisguised character. He was offering to One who had lived as the Village Carpenter the throne of the world. The intensity of the temptation lay however yet more in the fact that it seemed to open a swift way to the fulfilment of the Messianic promises, and the deliverance of the land for which the Lord felt so deep a love (Luke 13:34, Luke 19:41).
Verse 6
6. σοὶ δώσω. In the emphatic order of the original, ‘To thee will I give this power, all of it, and the glory of them.’
ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται. ‘Because to me it has been entrusted (and therefore,’ the perfect implies, ‘it is permanently mine,’ commissam habeo potestatem). Hence the expression, “the prince of this world,” John 12:31; John 14:30; “the prince of the power of the air,” Ephesians 2:2. Satan is in one sense “a world-ruler (κοσμοκράτωρ) of this darkness” (Ephesians 6:12). The Rabbis went even further, and called him ‘lord of this age’ (sar hâolâm), and even ‘another god’ (êl achêr), which is Manicheeism; whereas in this verse, by the very admission of Satan all Manicheeism is excluded. The Tempter subtly implies that the proposed homage will only be a recognition of the Divine permission by which he exercises this world-power.
ᾧ ἐὰν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν. Comp. Revelation 13:2, “the dragon gave him (the Beast i.e. Nero) his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Here however we note the exaggeration of the father of lies. How different was the language of our Lord to His ambitious disciples (Matthew 20:5).
Verse 7
7. σὺ οὖν ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ. ‘Thou then, if thou wilt do homage before me.’ Comp. Psalms 22:27. The pronouns are emphatic (comp. Luke 4:6), as is shewn both by their position, and by the full forms ἐμοί, ἐμοῦ. The word ‘worship’ of our A. V[98] is here used in the older and weaker sense of external homage to a superior. It is derived from worth-ship (worth = honour). Comp. Wiclif, Matthew 19:19, “Worschipe thi fadir and thi modir.”
ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα. ‘It’ (the habitable world) ‘shall be thine, all of it.’ There was then living, one to whom in as high an ambitious sense as has ever been realised, it did all belong—the Emperor Tiberius. But so far from enjoying it he was at this very time the most miserable and most degraded of men (Tac. Ann. VI. 6, IV. 61, 62, 67; Plin. H. N. XXVIII. 5). “My Kingdom,” said Jesus to Pilate, “is not of this world,” John 18:36.
Verse 8
8. The words ὕπαγε ὀπίσω should here be omitted with א BDL, &c., as having been added from Matthew 4:10. Similar words were used to Peter (Matthew 16:23).
προσκυνήσεις. The quotation is slightly altered from Deuteronomy 6:13, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him.” St Matthew has the same variation, this being one of his cyclic quotations (i.e. those common to him with other Evangelists). Since Satan had now revealed himself in his true character, there was no need for Jesus to tell him of another and a divine Kingdom over which he had no power. It was sufficient to reprove his impious blasphemy.
Verse 9
9. τὸ πτερύγιον. ‘The pinnacle, or battlement.’ Some well-known pinnacle of the Temple, either that of the Royal Portico, which looked down from a dizzy height into the Valley of the Kidron (Jos. Antt. XV. 11, § 5); or the Eastern Portico, from which tradition says that St James was afterwards hurled (Euseb. H. E. II. 23). ‘Battlement’ is used for the corresponding Hebrew word canaph (lit. ‘wing’) in Daniel 9:27.
βάλε σεαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν κάτω. ‘Fling thyself from hence down.’ The first temptation had been to natural appetite and impulse; the second was to unhallowed ambition; the third is to rash confidence and spiritual pride. It was based, with profound ingenuity, on the expression of absolute trust with which the first temptation had been rejected. It asked as it were for a splendid proof of that trust, and appealed to perverted spiritual instincts. It had none of the vulgar and sensuous elements of the other temptations. It was at the same time an implicit confession of impotence. “Cast thyself down.” The devil may place the soul in peril and temptation, but can never make it sin. “It is,” as St Augustine says, “the devil’s part to suggest, it is ours not to consent.”
Verse 10
10. γέγραπται γάρ.
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A deadly apple rotten at the heart.”
SHAKESPEARE.
“In religion
What damned error but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?”
Id.
τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε. To guard thee (as a sentinel; comp. Acts 12:6; Acts 12:19). The inf. with the genitive article is used after verbs of commanding, designing, &c. See Acts 15:20, &c. The quotation is from Psalms 91:11, but the tempter omits “in all thy ways,” which would have defeated his object, since the “ways” referred to are only the ways of him “who dwelleth under the defence of the Most High.” But, as the next verse prophesies, Christ ‘trod upon the lion and adder’ of Satanic temptation. To yield to the Temptation would have been to presume on His Sonship and challenge that equality with God which He “thought not a prize to grasp at.” “L’homme qui n’est plus homme, le Christ qui n’est plus Christ, le Fils qui n’est plus Fils, voilà les trois degrés de la tentation.” “Les tentations se rapportent, l’une à la personne de Jésus, l’autre à la nature de son œuvre, la troisième à l’usage du secours divin.” Godet.
Verse 12
12. οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις. If the compound be pressed it means ‘thou shalt not utterly tempt.’ It is impious folly to put God to the test by thrusting ourselves into uncalled-for danger. The angels will only guard our perilous footsteps when we are walking in the path of duty. We cannot claim miracles when we court temptations. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 6:16, and it is remarkable that the three quotations with which our Lord met the Tempter are all taken from the 6th and 8th chapters of this book.
Verse 13
13. πάντα πειρασμόν. ‘Every temptation.’ “He had,” as Bengel says, “shot his last dart.” The temptations had been addressed [1] to the desire of the flesh—trying to make the test of Sonship to God consist not in obedience but in the absence of pain; [2] to the pride of life—as though earthly greatness were a sign of God’s approval, and as though greatness consisted in power and success; [3] to spiritual pride—as though the elect of God might do as they will, and be secure against consequences. See note on Luke 4:10.
ἀπέστη. “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you,” James 4:7.
ἄχρι καιροῦ. ‘Until an opportunity,’ though the meaning comes to be the same as “for a season” (Acts 13:11). The words cannot possibly be equivalent to ἕως τέλους. St Matthew adds, “And, lo! angels came and began to minister unto Him.” We do not again meet with angels in a visible form till the Agony in Gethsemane. It must not be imagined that our Lord was only tempted at this crisis. He shared temptation with us, as the common lot of our humanity. “Many other were the occasions on which He endured temptation,” Bonaventura, Vit. Christi. See Luke 22:28; Hebrews 4:15. We may however infer from the Gospels that henceforth His temptations were rather the negative ones caused by suffering, than the positive ones caused by allurement. Ullmann, p. 30. See Matthew 27:40 (like the first temptation); John 7:3-4 (analogous to the second in St Matthew’s order); John 7:15 (like the third); Van Oosterzee. See too Luke 22:3; Luke 22:53; Matthew 16:22; John 14:30; John 8:44. It is instructive to compare this narrative with those of St Matthew (Matthew 4:1-11) and St Mark (Mark 1:12-13); St John omits the Temptation, perhaps because he mainly relates that which he personally witnessed. St Mark in his condensed allusion does not specify the three temptations. St Luke omits the ministry of angels, though not from any dislike to it (Luke 22:43).
Verse 14
14. καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. St Luke here omits that series of occurrences which is mainly preserved for us by the Apostle who recorded the Judaean ministry—St John; namely the deputation of the Sanhedrin to the Baptist (Luke 1:19-28), and his testimony about the baptism of Jesus (29–34); the call of Andrew and Simon (35–43); of Philip and Nathanael (44–51); the First Miracle, at Cana, and visit to Capernaum (Luke 2:1-12); the Passover at Jerusalem and first cleansing of the Temple (Luke 2:13-25); the secret visit of Nicodemus (Luke 3:1-21); the baptism of the disciples of Jesus, and the Baptist’s remarks to his disciples (Luke 3:22-36). St Luke has already mentioned by anticipation the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Luke 3:19-20), which probably hastened the return of Jesus to Galilee; but St John alone preserves the deeply interesting revelation to the Woman of Samaria, and the preaching among the Samaritans (John 4:4-42). This must have occurred during the journey from Judaea to Galilee mentioned in this verse.
εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. This district was the starting-point and main centre of our Lord’s ministry: see Acts 10:37, “which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee.” Luke 23:5, “He stirreth up the people, beginning from Galilee.” For the order of the narrative from this point to Luke 9:51 see the introductory analysis. It is not possible to arrange this section of the gospel (Luke 4:14 to Luke 9:50) with reference to the gathering and deepening opposition as Ritschl does. It is rather to be divided with reference to the gradual development of the work in Galilee. Godet divides it into four cycles:
1. 4:14–44. To the call of the first Disciples.
2. 5:1–6:11. To the nomination of the Twelve.
3. 6:12–8:56. To the first mission of the Twelve.
4. 9:1–50. To the departure of Jesus for Jerusalem.
Verses 14-23
14–23. JESUS RETURNS TO NAZARETH AND PREACHES THERE
Verse 15
15. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν, δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων. ‘And He Himself was teaching in their synagogues.’ ‘He Himself,’ in contrast with the rumour about Him in Luke 4:14. The word αὐτὸς in this Gospel comes to mean ‘the Master,’ as a sort of the title of honour, as in the “αὐτὸς ἔφα”—‘the Master said it’ of the Pythagoreans. The verse shews that the journey from Sychar to Nazareth was not direct but leisurely; and it is remarkably confirmed by John 4:45, who accounts for the favourable reception of Jesus in Galilee by saying that they had seen “all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast.”
Verse 16
16. καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρέτ. This is probably the visit related in unchronological order in Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6, since after so violent and decisive a rejection as St Luke describes, it is unlikely that He should have preached at Nazareth again. If so, we learn from the other Evangelists [1] that His disciples were with Him; [2] that He healed a few of the sick, being prevented from further activity by their unbelief. The Nazarenes were unfavourably disposed to Him (John 4:43-45).
κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ. This seems to refer to what had been the habit of the life of Jesus while He had lived at Nazareth. Hitherto however He had been, in all probability, a silent worshipper.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων. Observe the divine sanction thus given to the ordinance of weekly public worship.
εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. The article shews that the little village only possessed a single synagogue. Synagogues had sprung up throughout Judaea since the return from the exile. (Psalms 74:8.) They were rooms of which the end pointed towards Jerusalem (the Kibleh, or consecrated direction, of Jewish worship (Daniel 6:10), as Mecca is of Mohammedan). The men sat on one side, the veiled women behind a lattice on the other. The chief furniture was the Ark (tebhah) of painted wood, generally shrouded by a curtain, and containing the Thorah (Pentateuch), and rolls (megilloth) of the Prophets. On one side was a bema (in answer to an ignorant criticism, I may observe that the Jews borrowed the Greek name) for the reader and preacher, and there were “chief seats” (Mark 12:39) for the Ruler of the Synagogue, and the elders (zekanim). The servants of the synagogue were the clerk (chazzan), verger (sheliach) and deacons (parnasim, ‘shepherds’). I give the Jewish terms because they are technical, and the English equivalents cannot exactly represent them.
ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι. The custom was to read the Scriptures standing. There was no recognised or ordained ministry for the synagogues. The functions of Priests and Levites were confined to the Temple; the various officers of the synagogue were more like our churchwardens. Hence it was the custom of the Ruler or Elders to invite any one to read or preach who was known to them as a distinguished or competent person (Acts 13:15).
Verse 17
17. ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ. Literally, “there was further handed to Him.” The expression means that after He, or another, had read the Parashah, or First Lesson, which was always from the Pentateuch, the clerk handed to him the roll of Isaiah, which contained the Haphtarah, or Second Lesson.
καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον. If this is the true reading, it means ‘unrolling.’ The Thorah, or Law, was written on a parchment between two rollers, and was always left unrolled at the column for the day’s lesson; but the Megilloth of the Prophets, &c. were on single rollers, and the right place had to be found by the reader (Maphtir).
εὗρεν. The word leaves it uncertain whether the ‘finding’ was what man calls ‘accidental,’ or whether it was the regular haphtarah of the day. It is now the Second Lesson for the great day of Atonement; but according to Zunz (the highest Jewish authority on the subject) the present order of the Lessons in the Synagogue worship belongs to a later period than this. (Zunz, Gottesd. Vorträge, 6).
τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον. Isaiah 61:1-2. Our Lord, according to the custom of the Synagogue, must have read the passage in Hebrew, and then—either by Himself, or by an interpreter (Methurgeman)—it must have been translated to the congregation in Aramaic or Greek, since Hebrew was at this time a dead and learned language. The quotation is here freely taken by the Evangelist from the LXX[99], possibly from memory, and with reminiscences, intentional or otherwise, of other passages.
Verse 18
18. ἔχρισέν με. ‘He anointed’ (aorist); the following verb is in the perfect. The word Mashach in the Hebrew would recall to the hearers the notion of the Messiah—“il m’a messianisé” (Salvador). “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” Acts 10:38. In illustration of the verse generally, as indicating the work primarily of Isaiah, but in its fullest sense, of Christ, see Matthew 11:5; Matthew 5:3, &c.
εὐαγγελίσασθαι. Obviously the rendering of the A. V[100] “to preach the Gospel” connotes conceptions which could only have been imperfectly present to the mind of Isaiah, so that “to preach good tidings” (as in R.V[101]) is better.
πτωχοῖς. To the poor in spirit (Matthew 11:28; Matthew 5:3), as the Hebrew implies.
ἀπέσταλκέν με. ‘He hath sent me,’ which, by the natural force of the perfect, implies, ‘I am now here.’
[ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν.] Omitted in א BDL.
Verse 19
19. κηρῦξαι … ἀποστεῖλαι … κηρῦξαι. The infinitives follow each other without conjunctions (asyndeton, Winer, p. 674). For the accent of κηρῦξαι see Winer, p. 57.
αἰχμαλώτοις. Properly ‘prisoners of war’; but the word may be used generally as in Colossians 4:10.
τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν. Here the LXX[102] differs from the Hebrew, which has “opening of prison to the bound.” Perhaps this is a reminiscence of Isaiah 42:7.
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει. This also is not in Isaiah 61:1, but is a free reproduction of the LXX[103] in Isaiah 58:6. Either the text of the Hebrew was then slightly variant, or the record introduces into the text a reminiscence of the discourse. The ἐν ἀφέσει is a constructio praegnans ‘to send them away (so that they are) in a state of deliverance.’ (Comp. Luke 2:29.) By this construction we have often a verb of motion with a preposition of rest, or vice versâ. Winer, p. 775 sq. Comp. κατῆλθε Πλάτων ἐν Σικελίᾳ, Aelian, IV. 18. Ἡφαιστίων εἰς Ἐκβάτανα ἀπέθανε id. VII. 8. Comp. Matthew 14:3, ἔθετο ἐν φυλακῇ. Mark 2:1, εἰς οἶκόν ἐστι.
ἐνιαυτὸν … δεκτόν. ‘An acceptable year.’ The primary allusion is to the year of Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-10; but this was only a type of the true Jubilee of Christ’s kingdom. Many of the Fathers, (Clemens Alex., Origen, &c.,) with most mistaken literalness, inferred from this verse that our Lord’s ministry only lasted a year, and the notion acquired more credence from the extraordinary brightness of His first, or Galilaean, year of ministry. This view has been powerfully supported by Mr Browne in his Ordo Saeclorum, and is followed by Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. 130, 615 seq.; but is quite untenable (John 2:13; John 6:4; John 11:55).
Verse 20
20. πτύξας. ‘Rolling up.’ Generally the Haphtarah consists of twenty-one verses, and is never less than three; but our Lord stopped short in the second verse, because this furnished sufficient text for His discourse, and because He wished these gracious words to rest last on their ears, rather than the following words, “the day of vengeance of our God.”
τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ. The Chazzan, or ‘attendant.’ The word ‘minister’ might be misunderstood by English readers to mean ‘clergyman.’ The Jews had no officials like our parochial clergy.
ἐκάθισεν. The ordinary Jewish attitude for the sermon (Matthew 23:2).
ἀτενίζοντες. A favourite word of St Luke, who uses it eleven times; elsewhere it is only found in 2 Corinthians 3:7; 2 Corinthians 3:13. The attitude of Jesus shewed that now for the first time He intended not only to read but to preach.
Verse 21
21. ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτούς. i.e. these were the first words of the discourse. It began with the announcement that He was the Messiah in whom the words of the prophet found their fulfilment.
Verse 22
22. τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος. The words of the grace. Comp. Colossians 3:16, ἐν χάριτι ᾄδοντες. The word ‘grace’ does not here mean mercy or favour (Gnade), but beauty and attractiveness (Anmuth). This verse and John 7:46 are the chief proofs that there was in our Lord’s utterance an irresistible majesty and sweetness. Comp. Psalms 45:2; John 1:14. χάρις does not occur in the other Synoptists and only once in St John (John 1:14), but is common in St Luke, St Paul and St Peter.
οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὖτος; This points to a gradual change in the minds of the listening Nazarenes. The Jews in their synagogues did not sit in silence, but were accustomed to give full expression to their feelings, and to discuss and make remarks aloud. Jealousy began to work among them, Matthew 13:54; John 6:42. “The village beggarly pride of the Nazarenes cannot at all comprehend the humility of the Great One.” Stier. In making this purely irrelevant and grievous remark they were guilty of a very common fault;—they treated the matter of the Gospel as a subject for criticism, in order to suppress their more generous and spontaneous emotion. It was “faire de la critique pour échapper à la foi.”
Verse 23
23. τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην. Παραβολὴ represents the Hebrew mashal, and had a wider meaning than its English equivalent. Thus it is also used for a proverb (Beispiel), 1 Samuel 10:12; 1 Samuel 24:13; Ezekiel 12:22; or a type, Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 11:19. See on Luke 8:5.
ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. The same taunt was addressed to our Lord on the Cross. Here it seems to have more than one application,—meaning, ‘If you are the Messiah why are you so poor and humble?’ or, ‘Why do you not do something for us, here in your own home?’ (So Theophylact, Euthymius, &c.) It implies radical distrust, like Hic Rhodos, hic salta. There seems to be no exact Hebrew equivalent of the proverb; but something like it (a physician who needs healing) is found in Plut. De Discern. Adul. 32, ἰατρὸς ἄλλων, αὐτὸς ἔλκεσιν βρύων.
ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναούμ. All the things we hear of as done at (or to) Capernaum. The ἐν of some MSS. is a correction to an easier construction. See Winer, p. 518. The εἰς can hardly be here explained as a constructio praegnans. St Luke has not before mentioned Capernaum, and this is one of the many indications found in his writings that silence respecting any event is no proof that he was unaware of it. Nor has any other Evangelist mentioned any previous miracle at Capernaum, unless we suppose that the healing of the courtier’s son (John 4:46-54) had preceded this visit to Nazareth. Jesus had, however, performed the first miracle at Cana, and may well have wrought others during the stay of “not many days” mentioned in John 2:12. Capernaum was so completely the head-quarters of His ministry as to be known as “His own city.” (Matthew 4:12-16; Matthew 11:23.) Perhaps, as Meyer says, the Nazarenes here betray the petty jealousy felt by small towns against Capernaum. But there was at Nazareth a moral obstacle also. (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5. Comp. Luke 11:16; Luke 11:29; Luke 23:35.)
Verse 24
24. δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. ‘Is acceptable’ (rather than the accepted of the A. V[104], since δεκτὸς is a verbal adjective). St Matthew adds (Matthew 13:57) “and in his own house,” implying that “neither did His brethren believe on Him.” This curious psychological fact, which has its analogy in the worldly proverb that ‘No man is a hero to his valet,’ or, ‘Familiarity breeds contempt,’ was more than once referred to by our Lord; John 4:44. (“Vile habetur quod domi est,” Sen. De Benef. III. 2.)
Verses 24-30
24–30. REJECTION BY THE NAZARENES
Verse 25
25. πολλαὶ χῆραι ἦσαν … ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. So far from trying to flatter them, He tells them that His work is not to be for their special benefit or glorification, but that He had now passed far beyond the limitations of earthly relationships.
ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἔξ. Such was the Jewish tradition (Jalkut Shimeoni on 1 Kings 16) as we see also in James 5:17 (comp. Daniel 12:7; Revelation 11:2-3; Revelation 13:5). The Book of Kings only mentions three years (1 Kings 17:1; 1 Kings 17:8-9; 1 Kings 18:1-2), but in the “many days” it seems to imply more. 3½ being the half of 7 had a mystic significance. In the symbolism of numbers it indicated periods of misfortune, as in Daniel 12:7. See Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. ad loc.
λιμὸς μέγας. In Luke 15:14; Acts 11:28 λιμὸς is fem. as in Doric.
Verse 26
26. εἰ μὴ εἰς Σάρεπτα, i.e. “but he was sent to Sarepta.” Zarephath (1 Kings 17:9) was a Phoenician town near the coast between Tyre and Sidon, now called Surafend.
Verse 27
27. εἰ μὴ Ναιμὰν ὁ Σύρος. No leper was healed except Naaman. (2 Kings 5:1-14. Thus both Elijah and Elisha had carried God’s mercies to Gentiles.) The use of the words is elliptic, like οὐδὲν σιτέονται εἰ μὴ ἰχθῦς, Hdt. Comp. Matthew 12:4.
Verse 28
28. ἐπλήσθησαν … θυμοῦ. The aorist implies a sudden outburst. Perhaps they were already offended by knowing that Jesus had spent two days at Sychar among the hated Samaritans; and now He whom they wished to treat as “the carpenter” and their equal, was as it were asserting the superior claims of Gentiles and lepers. “Truth embitters those whom it does not enlighten.” “The word of God,” said Luther, “is a sword, is a war, is a poison, is a scandal, is a stumbling-block, is a ruin”—viz. to those who resist it (Matthew 10:34; 1 Peter 2:8).
Verse 29
29. ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ' οὖ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν. The word ὀφρύς, ‘eyebrow,’ is applied to hills, like the Latin supercilium (Verg. Georg. I. 108). The ‘whereon’ refers to the hill not to the brow of the hill. Nazareth nestles under the southern slopes of the hill. The cliff down which they wished to hurl Him (because this was regarded as a form of ‘stoning,’ the legal punishment for blasphemy) was certainly not the so-called ‘Mount of Precipitation,’ which is two miles distant, and therefore more than a sabbath day’s journey, but one of the rocky escarpments of the hill, and possibly that above the Maronite Church, which is about 40 feet high. This form of punishment (κατακρημνισμός) is only mentioned in 2 Chronicles 25:12; but in Phocis it was the punishment for sacrilege. (Philo.)
ὥστε. This expresses the intended result (comp. Luke 9:52), and is a little less harsh than εἰς τὸ which would represent direct purpose (Luke 20:20). The infinitive alone might have been used, as in Matthew 2:2, ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι: Acts 5:31, ὕψωσε … δοῦναι. (See Winer, p. 400.)
κατακρημνίσαι. Α ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N. T.
Verse 30
30. διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν. This is rather a mirabile than a miraculum, since no miracle is asserted or necessarily implied. The inherent majesty and dignity of our Lord’s calm ascendency, seem to have been sufficient on several occasions to overawe and cow His enemies; John 7:30; John 7:46; John 8:59; John 10:39-40; John 18:6 (see Psalms 18:29; Psalms 37:33). He left them this proof of His ascendency. As Theophylact points out, this was οὐ τὸ παθεῖν φεύγων, ἀλλὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἀναμένων.
ἐπορεύετο. Probably never to return again. Nazareth lies in a secluded valley out of the ordinary route between Gennesareth and Jerusalem. If after thirty sinless years among them they could reject Him, clearly they had not known the day of their visitation. This incident furnishes the most striking illustration of St John’s sad comment, “He came unto His own possessions (τὰ ἴδια) and His own people (οἱ ἴδιοι) received Him not” (John 1:11).
Verse 31
31. κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. St Matthew (Matthew 4:13-16) sees in the locality of Christ’s Ministry the fulfilment of Isaiah 9:1-2, omitting the first part, which should be rendered, “At the former time he brought contempt on the land of Zebulun and on the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he brought honour”. It was perhaps on His way to Capernaum that our Lord healed the courtier’s son (John 4:47-54). Capernaum is in all probability Tell Hûm, though others try to identify it with Khan Minyeh, which is nearer Tiberias. Capernaum was the Jewish capital of Galilee, though a few years later that position was disputed by the more Pagan civilisation of Sepphoris and Tiberias. The name means village (now Kefr) of Nahum, and Tell Hûm is ‘the ruined mound’ or ‘heap’ of (Na)hum. It is now a heap of desolation with little to mark it except the ruins of one white marble synagogue—possibly the very one built by the friendly centurion (Luke 7:5)—and the widely-scattered débris of what perhaps was another. But in our Lord’s time it was a bright and populous little town, at the very centre of what has been called “the manufacturing district of Palestine.” (Jos. B. J. III. 10, § 8.) It lay at the nucleus of roads to Tyre and Sidon, to Damascus, to Sepphoris (the Roman capital of Galilee), and to Jerusalem, and was within easy reach of Peraea and Ituraea. It was in fact on the “way of the sea” (Isaiah 9:1)—the great caravan road which led to the Mediterranean. It was hence peculiarly fitted to be the centre of a far-reaching ministry of which even Gentiles would hear. These things, as St Paul graphically says, were “not done in a corner,” Acts 26:26. Besides the memorable events of the day here recorded, it was here that Christ healed the paralytic (Luke 5:18) and the centurion’s servant (Luke 7:2), and called Levi (Matthew 9:9), rebuked the disciples for their ambition (Mark 9:35), and delivered the memorable discourse about the bread of life (John 6). It is an interesting fact that Marcion in his mutilation of St Luke’s Gospel began with, “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee.” The κατῆλθεν is only used by St Luke because the journey from Nazareth to Capernaum is a continuous descent; but Marcion chose to use it as describing a descent from heaven. He exscinded the earlier chapters of St Luke because they testify that Christ is truly man as well as perfectly God. See Neander, Ch. Hist. II. 182.
πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. These little descriptions and explanations shew that St Luke is writing for Gentiles who did not know Palestine. Comp. Luke 1:26, Luke 21:37, Luke 22:1. The explanation was not added in Luke 4:23 because he is there quoting the words of the Nazarenes.
ἦν διδάσκων. This analytic imperfect implies as before, continuous work.
Verses 31-37
31–37. THE HEALING OF A DEMONIAC
Verse 32
32. ἐξεπλήσσοντο. The word expresses more sudden and vehement astonishment than the more deeply-seated ‘amaze’ of Luke 4:36.
ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ. ‘At His teaching,’ referring here to the manner He adopted.
ἐν ἐξουσία ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. ‘His word was with authority,’ comp. Luke 4:36. St Matthew gives one main secret of their astonishment when he says that “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” Luke 7:29. The religious teaching of the Scribes in our Lord’s day had already begun to be the second-hand repetition of minute precedents supported by endless authorities. (“Rabbi Zeira says on the authority of Rabbi Jose bar Rabbi Chanina, and Rabbi Ba or Rabbi Chiya on the authority of Rabbi Jochanan, &c., &c.” Schwab. Jer. Berachôth, p. 159.) We see the final outcome of this servile secondhandness in the dreary trivialities of the Talmud. But Christ referred to no precedents; quoted no ‘authorities;’ dealt with fresher and nobler topics than fantastic hagadoth (‘legends’) and weary traditional halachôth (‘rules’). He spoke straight from the heart to the heart, appealing for confirmation solely to truth and conscience,—the inner witness of the Spirit.
Verse 33
33. πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου. The word ‘unclean’ is peculiar to St Luke, who writes for Gentiles. The word for devil is not diabolos, which is confined to Satan, or human beings like him (John 6:70), but daimonion, which in Greek was also capable of a good sense. The Jews believed daimonia to be the spirits of the wicked (Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3). Here begins that description of one complete Sabbath-day in the life of Jesus, from morning till night, which is also preserved for us in Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:21-31. It is the best illustration of the life of ‘the Good Physician’ of which the rarest originality was that “He went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). Into the question of the reality or unreality of ‘demoniac possession,’ about which theologians have held different opinions, we cannot enter. On the one hand, it is argued that the Jews attributed nearly all diseases, and especially all mental and cerebral diseases, to the immediate action of evil spirits; and that these ‘possessions’ are ranged with cases of ordinary madness; and that the common belief would lead those thus afflicted to speak as if possessed:—on the other hand, the literal interpretation of the Gospels points the other way, and in unenlightened ages, as still in dark and heathen countries, the powers of evil seem to have an exceptional range of influence over the mind of man. The student will see the whole question fully and reverently discussed in Jahn, Archaeologia Biblica, E. T. pp. 200–216.
Verse 34
34. ἔα. Omit λέγων, with א BL. The word Ea! may be not the imperative of ἐάω (‘desist!’) but a wild cry of horror, ‘Ha!’
τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; The demon speaks in the plural, merging his individuality in that of all evil powers. (Matthew 8:29; Mark 5:9.) For the phrase see Luke 8:28; 2 Samuel 16:10; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 17:18; John 2:4.
ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς. “The devils also believe and tremble,” James 2:19.
ὁ ἄγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. Luke 1:35; Psalms 16:10, “thine Holy One.” Daniel 9:24.
Verse 35
35. φιμώθητι. Literally, ‘Be muzzled,’ as in 1 Corinthians 9:9. See Matthew 22:34; Mark 1:25, &c.
ῥῖψαν. St Mark uses the stronger word σπαράξαν, “tearing him.” It was the convulsion which became a spasm of visible deliverance. It is most instructive to contrast the simple sobriety of the narratives of the Evangelists with the credulous absurdities of even so able, polished and cosmopolitan a historian as Josephus, who describes an exorcism wrought in the presence of Vespasian by a certain Eleazar. It was achieved by means of a ring and the ‘root of Solomon,’ and the demon in proof of his exit was ordered to upset a bason of water! (Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3; Antt. VIII. 2, § 5.) As this is the earliest of our Lord’s miracles recorded by St Luke, we may notice that the terms used for miracles in the Gospels are τέρας, ‘prodigy,’ and θαυμάσιον ‘wonderful’ (Matthew 21:15 only), from the effect on men’s minds; παράδοξον (Luke 5:26 only), from their strangeness; σημεῖα, ‘signs,’ and δυνάμεις ‘powers,’ from their being indications of God’s power; ἔνδοξα, ‘glorious deeds’ (Luke 13:17 only), as shewing His glory; and in St John ἔργα, ‘works,’ as the natural actions of One who was divine. See Trench, On Miracles, I. 9. “Miracles, it should be observed, are not contrary to nature, but beyond and above it.” Mozley.
μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν. The subjective negative is used to imply the unexpectedness of this result—not, as one would have thought, hurting him: comp. the μήτε ἐσθίων in Luke 7:33.
Verse 36
36. τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος; Vulg[105] Quod est hoc verbum? ‘What is this word?’
ἐξέρχονται. In strict Attic Greek the singular verb would have followed the neut. plur.
Verse 37
37. ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ. ‘A loud rumour about Him began to spread.’ ἦχος is a more emphatic word, and implies a louder rumour than φήμη. The sense of the word in Acts 2:2 (‘a loud voice’), Hebrews 12:19 (‘a trumpet blast’) is different.
Verse 38
38. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος. St Mark, nearly connected with St Peter, says more accurately “the house of Simon and Andrew” (Luke 1:29). This is the first mention of Peter in St Luke, but the name was too well known in the Christian Church to need further explanation. Peter and Andrew were of Bethsaida (John 1:44; John 12:21), a little fishing village, as its name (House of Fish) imports, now Ain et Tabijah or ‘the Spring of the Figtree,’ where, alone on the Sea of Galilee, there is a little strip of bright hard sand. St Luke does not mention this Bethsaida, though he mentions another at the northern end of the Lake (Luke 9:10). It was so near Capernaum that our Lord may have walked thither, or possibly Simon’s mother-in-law may have had a house at Capernaum. It is a remarkable indication of the little cloud of misunderstanding that seems to have risen between Jesus and those of His own house (Matthew 13:57; John 4:44), that though they were then living at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1; Matthew 17:24)—having perhaps been driven there by the hostility of the Nazarenes—their home was not His home.
πενθερὰ δὲ τοῦ Σίμωνος. “St Peter, the Apostle of Christ, who was himself a married man.” Marriage Service. St Peter’s wife seems afterwards to have travelled with him (1 Corinthians 9:5). Her (most improbable) traditional name was Concordia or Perpetua (Grabe, Spicil. Patr. I. 330).
ἦν συνεχομένη. ‘Was severely distressed.’ The analytic imperfect implies that the fever was chronic, and the verb that it was severe (Matthew 4:24).
πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ. St Luke, being a physician, uses the technical medical distinction of the ancients, which divided fevers into ‘great’ and ‘little’ (Galen, De diff. febr. 1). For other medical and psychological touches see Luke 5:12, Luke 6:6, Luke 22:50-51; Acts 3:6-8; Acts 4:22; Acts 9:33, &c.
ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν. Not, as elsewhere, the imperfect (John 4:47), but the aorist, implying that they only had to ask Him once. St Mark confirms this when he says (Luke 1:30), ‘immediately they speak to Him about her.’
Verse 38-39
38, 39. THE HEALING OF SIMON’S WIFE’S MOTHER
Verse 39
39. ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς. A graphic touch, found here only. The other Evangelists say that He took her by the hand.
ἀναστᾶσα διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. Literally, ‘arising at once she began to wait on them.’ The more Attic augment is ἐδιακόνει.
Verse 40
40. δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου. Comp. Matthew 8:16, ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης; Mark 1:32, ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος. St Matthew and St Mark agree most closely in details, St Mark and St Luke in the order of the narrative. The form δύνω is Ionic and poetic, and it is found here alone in the N. T. Sunset ended the Sabbath, and thus enabled Jews, without infringing on the many minute ‘abhoth’ and ‘toldoth’—i.e. primary and subordinate rules of sabbatic strictness—to carry their sick on beds and pallets. (John 5:11-12; see Life of Christ, I. 433.) This twilight scene of Jesus moving about with word and touch of healing among the sick and suffering, the raving and tortured crowd (Matthew 4:24), is one of the most striking in the Gospels, and St Matthew quotes it as a fulfilment of Isaiah 53:4.
Verses 40-44
40–44. HEALING THE SICK AT EVENING
Verse 41
41. κραυγάζοντα. The word implies the harsh screams of the demoniacs.
σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The words “Thou art Christ” should be omitted with א BCDFL, &c.
οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν. “His hour was not yet come” (John 7:30), nor in any case would He accept such testimony. So St Paul silenced the Pythoness at Philippi (Acts 16:18). “Nec tempus erat,” says Bengel, “nec hi praecones.”
λαλεῖν ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. “To say that they knew that He was the Christ,” i.e. the Messiah. It was not till after the Crucifixion that ‘Christ’ became a proper name, and not a title.
Verse 42
42. γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας. St Mark (Mark 1:35) uses the expression ‘rising up exceedingly early in the morning, while it was yet dark.’ It was His object to escape into silence, and solitude, and prayer, without being observed by the multitudes.
εἰς ἔρημον τόπον. Densely as the district was populated, such a place might be found in such hill ravines as the Vale of Doves at no great distance.
ἐπεζήτουν αὐτόν. ‘Were earnestly seeking for Him.’ It is characteristic of the eager impetuosity of St Peter, that (as St Mark tells us, Luke 1:36) he, with his friends, on this occasion (literally) ‘hunted Him down’ (κατεδίωξαν).
ἦλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ. ‘They came up to (like ‘as far as’) Him.’ The preposition is rarely used of persons (Acts 9:38) but generally of places, as in Luke 6:29, and of time in the sense of ‘until’ (Luke 16:16, Luke 23:44). Some unrecorded circumstance is perhaps implied in the word as compared with Mark 1:36.
κατεῖχον αὐτόν. ‘Tried’ or wished ‘to detain Him.’ It is the tentative imperfect. See note on Luke 1:59.
τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι. The genitive is governed by κατεῖχον. Comp. Spenser, “Could save the son of Thetis from to die.”
Verse 43
43. ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν. ‘To the rest of the cities.’ In St Mark He says, ‘Let us go elsewhere to the adjoining country villages.’
εὐαγγελίσασθαι. ‘Tell the glad tidings of.’ In the next verse we have the different verb κηρύσσω.
δεῖ. ‘It behoves me’—the ‘must’ of moral obligation.
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. The acceptance of the Faith of Christ, whether in the heart or in the world, was illustrated by Christ in its small beginnings,—the mustard seed (Luke 13:19); in its hidden working (Luke 13:21); and in its final triumph.
ἀπεστάλην. ‘I was sent;’ which is equally true in one aspect with ἐξελήλυθα, ‘I have come forth.’ Mark 1:38.
Verse 44
44. ἦν κηρύσσων. ‘He was preaching,’ implying a continued ministry.
τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Here א BCL and other uncials have the important various reading “of Judaea.” If this reading be correct, it is another of the many indications that the Synoptists assume and imply that Judaean ministry which St John alone narrates. Godet on very insufficient grounds calls it an absurd reading.
05 Chapter 5
Verse 1
1. ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ. With this section compare Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20. St Mark (as is his wont) uses stronger words (ἐπιπίπτειν, θλίβειν) to express the physical inconvenience, and adds that sometimes at any rate, the multitude pressed on Jesus with a view to touch Him and be healed (Luke 3:9-10).
καὶ ἀκούειν. The more probable reading is not τοῦ but καἰ, ‘and listened to.’
τὴν λίμνην Γεννησαρέτ. “The most sacred sheet of water which this earth contains.” Stanley. St Luke alone, writing for the Greeks, accurately calls it a lake. The Galilaean and Jewish Evangelists unconsciously follow the Hebrew idiom which applies the name yam ‘sea,’ to every piece of water. Gennesareth is probably a corruption of the old Hebrew name Kinnereth, but the Rabbis derive it from ganne sarim, ‘gardens of princes.’ This same inland lake is generally called ‘the Sea of Galilee’ (Matthew 15:29, &c.). In the Old Testament it is called “the Sea of Chinneroth” (Joshua 12:3) from its harplike shape. St John calls it “the Sea of Tiberias;” because by the time he wrote Tiberias—which in our Lord’s time had only just been founded by Herod Antipas—had grown into a flourishing town. Gennesareth is a clear sweet lake about thirteen miles long and seven broad, with the Jordan flowing through it. Its fish produced a valuable revenue to those who lived on its shores. The plain of Gennesareth, which lies 500 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, is now known as El Ghuweir, ‘the little hollow.’ It is so completely a desolation, that the only inhabited places on the western shore of the Lake are the crumbling, dirty, earthquake-shaken town of Tiberias and the mud village of El Mejdel, the ancient Magdala. The burning and enervating heat is no longer tempered by cultivation and by trees. It is still however beautiful in spring, with flowering oleanders, and the soil is fruitful where it is not encumbered with ruins as at Khan Minyeh (Tarichaea) and Tell Hûm (Capernaum). In our Lord’s time it was, as Josephus calls it, “the best part of Galilee” (B. J. III. 10, § 7) containing many villages, of which the least had 15,000 inhabitants. Josephus becomes quite eloquent over the descriptions of its rich fruits nearly all the year, its grateful temperature, and its fertilising stream (Jos. B. J. III. 10, §§ 7, 8), so that, he says, one might call it ‘the ambition of nature.’ It belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (Deuteronomy 33:23) and the Rabbis said that of the “seven seas” of Canaan, it was the only one which God had reserved for Himself. In our Lord’s time it was covered with a gay and numerous fleet of 4000 vessels, from ships of war down to fishing boats; now it is often difficult to find a single crazy boat even at Tiberias, and the Arabs fish mainly by throwing poisoned bread-crumbs into the water near the shore. As four great roads communicated with the Lake it became a meeting-place for men of many nations—Jews, Galilaeans, Syrians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Greeks and Romans.
Verses 1-11
Luke 5:1-11. THE DRAUGHT OF FISHES. THE CALLING OF FOUR DISCIPLES
Verse 2
2. πλοῖα, ‘boats.’
ἑστῶτα, drawn up close to the shore, or lying at anchor.
ἔπλυνον τὰ δίκτυα. They might have been listening to Christ even while they continued their work. If ἔπλυναν be read, the aor. can only be used in an incorrect sense. If we combine these notices with those in Mark 1:16-20; Matthew 4:18-22, we must suppose that during a discourse of Jesus the four disciples were fishing with a drawnet (ἀμφίβληστρον) not far from the shore, and within hearing of His voice; and that the rest of the incident (here narrated) took place on the morning after. The disciples had spent the night in fruitless labour, and now Peter and Andrew were washing, and James and John mending, their castingnets (δίκτυα), because they felt that it was useless to go on, since night is the best time for fishing.
δίκτυα. ‘Castingnets’ (from δίκω I throw, funda, jaculum) as in Matthew 4:20; John 21:6. In Matthew 4:18 we have the ἀμφίβληστρον or drawnet (from ἀμφὶ and βάλλω, I throw around); and in Matthew 13:47, σαγήνη, seine or haulingnet (from σάττω ‘I load’).
Verse 3
3. ἐπαναγαγεῖν. The technical word for putting out to sea, 2 Maccabees 12:4.
καθίσας. The ordinary attitude (as we have seen, Luke 4:20) for a sermon.
Verse 4
4. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν. The aorist implies that no sooner was His sermon ended than He at once thought, not of His own fatigue, but of His poor disappointed followers.
χαλάσατε, ‘let ye down.’ The first command (ἐπανάγαγε) is in the singular, and is addressed to Peter only as “the pilot of the Galilaean Lake.”
Verse 5
5. ἐπιστάτα. The word is not Rabbi as in the other Evangelists,—a word which Gentiles would not have understood but Ἐπιστάτα (in its occasional classic sense of ‘teacher’) which is peculiar to St Luke (Luke 5:5, Luke 8:24; Luke 8:45, Luke 9:33; Luke 9:49, Luke 17:13), who never uses Rabbi. These are the only places where it occurs.
Verse 6
6. πλῆθος ἰχθύων πολύ. Of this—as of all miracles—we may say with St Gregory Dum facit miraculum prodit mysterium—in other words the miracle was an acted parable, of which the significance is explained in Matthew 13:47. Banks of fish, suddenly congregated, are not uncommon in the Lake of Gennesareth (Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, 285) and the miracle consisted in causing this result at this moment.
διερήσσετο, ‘were beginning to break.’ Contrast this with John 21:11, οὐκ ἐσχίσθη. This breaking net is explained by St Augustine as the symbol of the Church which now is: he compares the unrent net to the Church of the future which shall know no schisms.
Verse 7
7. κατένευσαν. It is one of the inimitable touches of truthfulness in the narrative that the instinct of work prevails at first over the sense that a miraculous power has been exerted.
τοῖς μετόχοις, ‘fellow-workers.’
ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ πλοίῳ. St Luke uses ἕτερος for ‘another of two,’ much more frequently and with stricter accuracy than the other Evangelists.
Verse 8
8. ἰδὼν δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος. Apparently it was only when he saw the boats sinking to the gunwale with their load of fish that the tenderness and majesty of the miracle flashed upon his mind.
ἔξελθε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ. The word implies leave my boat and go from me. Here again is the stamp of truthfulness. Any one inventing the scene would have made Peter kneel in thankfulness or adoration, but would have missed the strange psychological truthfulness of the sense of sin painfully educed by the revealed presence of divine holiness. We find the expression of analogous feelings in the case of Manoah (Judges 13:22); the Israelites at Sinai (Exodus 20:19); the men of Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:20); David after the death of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:9); the lady of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:18); Job (Job 42:5-6); and Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5). The exclamation of St Peter was wrung from a heart touched with a sense of humility, and his words did not express his thoughts. They were the cry of agonised humility, and only emphasized his own utter unworthiness. They were in reality the reverse of the deliberate and calculated request of the swine-feeding Gadarenes. The dead and profane soul dislikes and tries to get rid of the presence of the Divine. The soul awakened only to conviction of sin is terrified. The soul that has found God is conscious of utter unworthiness, but fear is lost in love (1 John 4:18). It is absurd to suppose that Peter was thinking of the danger which Jesus might incur from being on board with a criminal! (Hor. Od. iii. 2. 26).
ἀνὴρ ἁμαρτωλός. The Greek has two words for man—ἄνθρωπος, a general term for ‘human being’ (homo); and ἀνήρ for ‘a man’ (vir). The use of the latter here shews that Peter’s confession is individual, not general. When Barnabas (that may have been the writer’s name, though he could not have been the ‘Apostle’) says that the Twelve before their call were ‘sinners above all sin’ (Ephesians 5), he is guilty of one of the follies which so greatly discredit that early Christian writing. The confessions of holy men are always strongly expressed, and Peter’s sense of sin was that which often fills the heart of those whom the world justly regards as saints.
κύριε. The word often means no more than ‘Sir.’ It must be remembered that this was the second call of Peter and the three Apostles,—the call to Apostleship; they had already received a call to faith. They had received their first call on the banks of Jordan, and had heard the witness of John, and had witnessed the miracle of Cana. They had only returned to their ordinary avocations until the time came for Christ’s full and active ministry.
Verse 9
9. θάμβος περιέσχεν αὐτόν, ‘astonishment seized him.’
Verse 10
10. κοινωνοί, ‘associates’ in profits, &c. comp. Luke 5:7.
μὴ φοβοὺ. Accordingly, on another occasion, when Peter sees Jesus walking on the sea, so far from crying Depart from me, he cries “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water” (Matthew 14:28); and when he saw the Risen Lord standing in the misty morning on the shore of the Lake “he cast himself into the sea” to come to Him (John 21:7). These blessed words μὴ φοβοῦ, so characteristic of the Gospel (Matthew 10:26; Matthew 10:31; Matthew 14:27; Matthew 28:5; Mark 5:36; Mark 6:50) seem to be favourite words with St Luke (Luke 1:13; Luke 1:30, Luke 2:10, Luke 8:50, Luke 12:4; Luke 12:7; Luke 12:32, Luke 24:36; Acts 18:9; Acts 27:24).
ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν. Literally, ‘thou shalt be catching alive (ζωός, ἀγρεύω). If the Emperor Julian had attended to the meaning of the verb his sneer that the ‘men’ so ‘caught’ would die, like fishes out of water, would have become pointless. In Jeremiah 16:16 the fishers draw out men to death, and in Amos 4:2; Habakkuk 1:14, “men are made as the fishes of the sea” by way of punishment. Here the word seems to imply the contrast between the fish that lay glittering there in dead heaps, and men who should be captured not for death (James 1:14), but for life. But Satan too captures men alive (2 Timothy 2:26, the only other passage where the verb occurs). From this and the parable of the seine or haulingnet (Matthew 13:47) came the favourite early Christian symbol of the ‘Fish.’ “We little fishes,” says Tertullian, “after our Fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ, i.e. Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ) are born in the water (of baptism).” The prophecy was first fulfilled to Peter, when 3000 were converted by his words at the first Pentecost. In a hymn of St Clement of Alexandria we find “O fisher of mortals who are being saved, Enticing pure fish for sweet life from the hostile wave.” Thus, He who “spread the fisher’s net over the palaces of Tyre and Sidon, gave into the fisher’s hand the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” “He caught orators by fishermen, and made out of fishermen his orators.” We find a similar metaphor used by Socrates, Xen. Mem. II. 6, “Try to be good and to catch the good. I will help you, for I know the art of catching men.”
Verse 11
11. ἀφέντες πάντα. The sacrifice was a willing one, but they were not unconscious of its magnitude; and it was the allusion to it by Peter which called forth the memorable promise of the hundredfold (Luke 18:28-30; Mark 10:29-30). We gather from St Mark that Zebedee (Zabdia) and his two sons had hired servants (Luke 1:20), and therefore they were probably richer than Simon and Andrew, sons of Jona. The miraculous draught of fishes was not the sole cause why these Apostles ‘forsook all and followed Christ.’ We see from St John that they were, so to speak, awaiting their call even now; and further than this the fragmentary indications of the Gospels clearly suggest the inference that the sons of Zebedee were first cousins of our Lord. He had probably known them and others of the Apostles for many years. See my Life of Christ, I. 140–159, 251.
Verse 12
12. ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων, ‘in one of the cities.’ Probably the village of Hattin, for we learn from St Matthew’s definite notice that this incident took place on descending from the Mount of Beatitudes (Kurn Hattin), see Matthew 8:1-4; Mark 1:40-45. St Mark seems to imply that it was in a house. Chronologically the call of Matthew, the choosing of the Twelve, and the Sermon on the Mount probably intervene between this incident and the last.
ἐγένετο … καί. See note on Luke 2:15. The paratactic (comp. Luke 5:17) arrangement of the sentence again points to an Aramaic original.
ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας. The hideous and hopeless nature of this disease—which is nothing short of a foul decay, arising from the total corruption of the blood—has been too often described to need further notice. See Leviticus 13, 14. It was a living death, as indicated by bare head, rent clothes, and covered lip. In the middle ages, a man seized with leprosy was “clothed in a shroud, and the masses of the dead sung over him.” In its horrible repulsiveness it is the Gospel type of Sin. The expression “full of” implies the rapid development and horror of the disease; when the man’s whole body was covered with the whiteness, he was allowed to mingle with others as clean (Leviticus 13:13).
πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον. We get the full picture by combining the three Evangelists. We then see that he came with passionate entreaties, flinging himself on his knees, and worshipping, and finally in his agony prostrating himself on his face.
δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. The faith of this poor leper must have been intense, for hitherto there had been but one instance of a leper cleansed by miracle (Luke 4:27; 2 Kings 5). Comp. however Exodus 4:7; Numbers 12:10.
Verses 12-16
12–16. THE HEALING OF A LEPER
Verse 13
13. ἥψατο αὐτοῦ. This was a distinct violation of the letter, but not of course of the spirit of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 5:2). In order to prevent the accidental violation of this law, lepers, until the final stage of the disease, were then as now secluded from all living contact with others, “differing in nothing from a dead man” (Jos. Antt. III. 11, § 3), and only appeared in public with the cry Tamê, Tamê—‘Unclean! Unclean!’ But Jesus, “because He is the Lord of the Law, does not obey the Law, but makes the Law” (St Ambrose); or rather, He obeys that divine eternal Law of Compassion, in its sudden impulse (σπλαγχνισθεὶς, Mark 1:40), which is older and grander than the written Law. (So Elijah and Elisha had not scrupled to touch the dead, 1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34.) His touching the leper, yet remaining clean, is a type of His taking our humanity upon Him, remaining undefiled.
θέλω, καθαρίσθητι. ‘I will! Be cleansed!’ Two words—“a prompt echo to the ripe faith of the leper”—which are accurately preserved by all three Evangelists. Our Lord’s first miracles were done with a glad spontaneity in answer to faith. But when men had ceased to believe in Him, then lack of faith rendered His latter miracles more sad and more delayed (Mark 6:5; Matthew 13:58). We never however hear of a moment’s delay in attending to the cry of a leper. When the sinner cries from his heart, “I have sinned against the Lord,” the answer comes instantly, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin” (2 Samuel 12:13).
ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ. St Matthew (Matthew 8:2) says ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. St Mark (Mark 1:42) writes both phrases. St Matthew looks at the result Levitically, St Luke medically. Jesus was not polluted by the touch, but the leper was cleansed. Even so He touched our sinful nature, yet without sin (H. de S. Victore).
Verse 14
14. καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν. He personally charged him to tell it to no one. The use of αὐτὸς for Jesus (He—the Master) is chiefly found in St Luke. Comp. Aristoph. Nub. 218. These injunctions to reticence marked especially the early part of the ministry. See Luke 4:35, Luke 5:14, Luke 8:56. The reasons were probably (i) personal to the healed sufferer, lest his inward thankfulness should be dissipated by the idle and boastful gossip of curiosity (St Chrys.); but far more (ii) because, as St Matthew expressly tells us, He did not wish His ministry to be accompanied by excitement and tumult—in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah 42:2 (Matthew 12:15-50; comp. Philippians 2:6-7; Hebrews 5:5; John 18:36); and (iii) because He came, not merely and not mainly, to be a great Physician and Wonder-worker, but to save men’s souls by His Revelation, His Example, and His Death.
It is evident however that there was something very special in this case, for St Mark says (Luke 1:43), “violently enjoining him (ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ), immediately He thrust him forth, and said to him, See that you say no word to any one” (ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς) (according to the right reading and translation). Clearly, although the multitudes were following Christ (Matthew 8:1), He was walking before them, and the miracle had been so sudden and instantaneous (ἰδοὺ … εὐθέως) that they had not observed what had taken place. Probably our Lord desired to avoid the Levitical rites for uncleanness which the unspiritual ceremonialism of the Pharisees might have tried to force upon Him.
On other occasions, when these reasons did not exist, He even enjoined the publication of an act of mercy, Luke 8:39.
ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ ἱερεῖ. We find similar instances of transition from indirect to direct narration, in Acts 23:22; Psalms 74:16. See my Brief Greek Syntax, p. 199. The priest alone could legally pronounce him clean.
προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου. The student should read for himself the intensely interesting and symbolic rites commanded by Moses for the legal pronunciation of a leper clean in Leviticus 14. They occupy fourteen chapters of Negaîm, one of the treatises of the Mishnah.
καθὼς προσέταξεν ΄ωϋσῆς. A reference to Leviticus 14:4-10 will shew how heavy an expense the offering entailed.
εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς, i.e. that the priests may assure themselves that the miracle is real. In Luke 9:5; Mark 6:11 the words mean ‘for a witness against them;’ and although St Luke’s phrase is not very definite, it may imply ‘for an evidence to the priests that I do not neglect the Mosaic Law’ (Matthew 5:17). It is evident from St John that this suspicion had excited hostility against Him from the first. The impetuous phrase of St Mark εὐθέως ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν perhaps paints the agitation of Jesus as He recalled the suspicion and thwarting hatred which might arise from His having touched this leper, and so broken the letter of the Law, which, in such cases, even when accidentally violated, involved the necessity for a Levitical quarantine.
Verse 15
15. διήρχετο δὲ μᾶλλον ὁ λόγος περὶ αὐτοῦ. ‘But the talk about Him spread the more.’ This is a classical use of διέρχομαι, Soph. Aj. 978; Thuc. VI. 46. It is only used once again by St Luke (Acts 5:34) and once by St Paul (1 Timothy 1:7). It is clear that the leper disobeyed the strict injunction of Jesus, as St Mark 1:45 emphatically records. Such disobedience was natural, and perhaps venial; but certainly not commendable.
συνήρχοντο ὄχλοι πολλοὶ … θεραπεύεσθαι. Thus in part defeating our Lord’s purpose.
Verse 16
16. αὐτὸς δὲ ἦν ὑποχωρῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις. ‘But He Himself was retiring in the wilderness and praying.’ St Mark (Mark 1:45) gives us the clearest view of the fact by telling us that the leper blazoned abroad his cure in every direction, “so that He was no longer able to enter openly into a city, but was without, in desert spots; and they began to come to Him from all directions.” We here see that this retirement was a sort of “Levitical purification,” which however the multitudes disregarded as soon as they discovered where He was.
καὶ προσευχόμενος. St Luke’s is eminently the Gospel of Prayer and Thanksgiving. See note on Luke 3:21.
Verse 17
17. ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. ‘On one of those days.’ The vagueness of the phrase shews that no stress is here laid on chronological order. In Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 2:3-12 the scene is a house in Capernaum, and the time (apparently) after the healing of the Gadarene demoniac on the eastern side of the Lake, and on the day of Matthew’s feast.
καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν διδάσκων. Lit. ‘It came to pass … and He was teaching and there were.’ St Luke is fond of this paratactic arrangement of sentences by means of and. He uses καὶ most frequently in his Gospel, and τε in the Acts. Comp. Luke 7:37. Jesus was not teaching in a synagogue, but probably in Peter’s house. Notice the “He” which is so frequent in St Luke, and marks the later epoch when the title “the Christ” had passed into a name, and when “He” could have but one meaning. See on Luke 4:15.
Φαρισαῖοι καὶ νομοδιδάσκαλοι. The word νομοδιδάσκαλος means the same as νομικὸς in Luke 7:30 &c. See Excursus on the Jewish Sects.
καὶ Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλήμ. These had probably come out of simple curiosity to hear and see the great Prophet of Nazareth. They were not the spies malignantly sent at the later and sadder epoch of His ministry (Matthew 15:1; Mark 3:2; Mark 7:1) to dog His footsteps, and lie in wait to catch any word on which they could build an accusation.
κυρίου, ‘of Jehovah.’ If Christ were meant the article would be used.
ἦν. The word is here emphatic—‘was present,’ praesto erat. It is probably due to an Aramaic original. It is remarkable that in Mark 2:1-11 the same story is told in widely different phraseology.
εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι αὐτόν. This is the reading of א BL. If the reading be correct the verse means “the Power of the Lord (i.e. of the Almighty Jehovah) was with Him to heal.” If αὐτοὺς be read it refers to the sick among the multitude.
Verses 17-26
17–26. THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC
Verse 18
18. ἄνδρες. Four bearers, Mark 2:3.
παραλελυμένος. The word used by Matthew (Matthew 9:1-8) and Mark (Mark 2:1-12) is “paralytic,” but as that is not a classic word, St Luke uses “having been paralysed.”
ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν εἰσενεγκεῖν. St Mark explains that the crowd was so great that they could not even get to the door.
Verse 19
19. μὴ εὑρόντες. Comp. Luke 2:45.
ποίας, ‘in what way’ (ὁδοῦ might have been expressed). The διὰ ποίας of Ebr. is a grammatical gloss, as also are the readings πῶς and πόθεν. ποίᾳ is an unsupported conjecture of Bornemann. We have a similar local genitive in ἐκείνης, ‘that way,’ Luke 19:4. It is found in the pronominal adverbs οὖ, ποῦ, and in such phrases as λαιᾶς χειρός, ‘on the left hand,’ Aesch. Prom. 714. Cp. Ag. 1054; Soph. El. 900. See my Brief Greek Syntax, § 46; Winer, p. 739, and § 30, 11.
ἀναβάντες ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα. A very easy thing to do because there was in most cases an outside staircase to the roof, Matthew 24:17. Eastern houses are often only one storey high, and when they are built on rising ground, the roof is often nearly on a level with the street above. Our Lord may have been teaching in the “upper room” of the house, which was usually the largest and quietest. 2 Kings 4:10; Acts 1:13; Acts 9:37.
διὰ τῶν κεράμων καθῆκαν αὐτόν. St Mark says they uncovered the roof where He was, and digging it up, let down ‘the pallet.’ Clearly then two operations seem to have been necessary: [1] to remove the tiles, and (ii) to dig through some mud partition. But the description is too vague to enable us to understand the details. Sceptical writers have raised difficulties about it in order to discredit the whole narrative, but the making of an aperture in the roof (comp. Cic. Phil. II. 18, “per tegulas demitterere”) is an everyday matter in the East (Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 358), and is here alluded to, not because it was strange, but to illustrate the active, and as it were nobly impatient, faith of the man and the bearers.
σὺν τῷ κλινιδίῳ. ‘Little bed,’ probably a mere mat or mattress. It means the same as St Mark’s κράββατος, but that being a semi-Latin word (grabatum) would be more comprehensible to the Roman readers of St Mark than to the Greek readers of St Luke. St Luke not only avoids the vernacular word, but also its repetition (κλίνη, ἐφ' ὅ κατέκειτο).
Verse 20
20. ἄνθρωπε. St Mark has “Son,” and St Matthew “Cheer up, son,” which were probably the exact words used by Christ.
ἀφέωνταί σοι. ‘Have been forgiven thee,’ i.e. now and henceforth. The form ἀφέωνται found in the four Evangelists (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; 1 John 2:12) is according to Suidas a Doric form for the 3rd pers. plur. ἀφεῖνται of the perf. pass. ἀφεῖμαι after the analogy of the perf. ἀφέωκα. The Etym. Magnus calls it an Attic form. Hellenistic Greek has forms which have come to it from various dialects (see Winer, p. 96). In this instance our Lord’s power of reading the heart must have shewn Him that there was a connexion between past sin and present affliction. The Jews held it as an universal rule that suffering was always the immediate consequence of sin. The Book of Job had been directed against that hard, crude, Pharisaic generalisation. Since that time it had been modified by the view that a man might suffer, not for his own sins, but for those of his parents (John 9:3). These views were all the more dangerous because they were the distortion of half-truths. Our Lord, while He always left the individual conscience to read the connexion between its own sins and its sorrows (John 5:14), distinctly repudiated the universal inference (Luke 13:5; John 9:3).
Verse 21
21. τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας; This is a perfect iambic line. The word οὖτος is contemptuous. St Matthew puts it still more barely, ‘This fellow blasphemes.’ To indulge such thoughts and feelings was distinctly “to think evil thoughts.”
βλασφημίας. In classical Greek the word means abuse and injurious talk, but the Jews used it specially of curses against God, or claiming His attributes (Matthew 26:65; John 10:36).
τίς δύναται ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θέος; The remark in itself was not unnatural, Psalms 32:5; Isaiah 43:25; but they captiously overlooked the possibility of a delegated authority, and the ordinary declaratory idioms of language, which might have shewn them that blasphemy was a thing impossible to Christ, even if they were not yet prepared to admit the Divine Power which He had already exhibited.
Verse 22
22. ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. ‘Jesus, recognising.’
τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν. ‘Their reasoning.’
Verse 23
23. τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον …; The adj. εὕκοπος is not found in Attic. In the N.T. it is only used in the comparative. Any one might say ‘thy sins have been forgiven’ without any visible sign whether his words had any power or not; no one could by a word make a man ‘rise and walk’ who had not received power from God. But our Lord had purposely used words which while they brought the earthly miracle into less prominence, went to the very root of the evil, and implied a yet loftier prerogative.
Verse 24
24. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Ben-Adam has a general sense of any human being (Psalms 8:5; Job 25:6, &c.); in a special sense in the O.T. it is nearly 90 times applied to Ezekiel, though never used by himself of himself. In the N.T. it is 80 times used by Christ, but always by Himself, except in passages which imply His exaltation (Acts 7:56; Revelation 1:13-20). The Title, as distinctively Messianic, is derived from Daniel 7:13, and is there Bar-Enôsh, a word descriptive of man in his humiliation. The inference seems to be that Christ used it to indicate the truth that “God highly exalted Him” because of His self-humiliation in taking our flesh (Philippians 2:5-11). For while ‘Son of Man’ suits His humiliation, ‘the Son of Man’ is a title by which He expresses that He was the federal head of humanity.
ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας. On earth; and therefore, of course, a fortiori, He hath in heaven.
σοὶ λέγω. ‘To thee I say.’ The position is emphatic.
Verse 25
25. ἐφ' ὃ κατέκειτο. The ἐφ' ᾧ of the Rec[121] is a less common expression. Ἐφ' ὅ is another instance of a prep. of motion with a verb of rest as in ἔστη ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν, John 21:4; καθίσεσθε ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους, Matthew 19:28, and the phrase εἶναι ἐπὶ χθόνα. See Winer, p. 508. This circumstance is emphasized in all three narratives to contrast the man’s previous helplessness, “borne of four,” with his present activity. He now carried the bed which had carried him, and “the proof of his sickness became the proof of his cure.” The labour would have been no more than that of carrying a rug or a cloak, yet it was this which excited the fury of the Pharisees in Jerusalem (John 5:9). The ‘Sabbath-breaking’ involved in the act was not specially attacked by the simpler and less Pharisaic Pharisees of Galilee.
Verse 26
26. ἐπλήσθησαν φόβου. See on Luke 5:8.
παράδοξα. ‘Startling things,’ ‘things contrary to expectation.’ It expresses the οὐδέποτε οὔτως εἴδομεν of Mark 2:12 and the ἐθαύμασαν of Matthew 9:8. It occurs nowhere else in the N.T.
Verse 27
27. ἐθεάσατο. ‘He observed.’
ὀνόματι Λευείν. It may be regarded as certain that Levi is the same person as the Evangelist St Matthew. The name Matthew (probably a corruption of Mattithjah) means, like Nathanael, Theodore, Dositheus, Adeodatus, &c., ‘the gift of God,’ and it seems to have been the name which he himself adopted after his call (see Matthew 9:9; Matthew 10:3; Mark 2:14).
ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον. See note on Luke 3:12. It should be rendered as in the R.V[122] “at the place of toll,” not as in A.V[123] “at the receipt of custom.” Wyclif rightly renders it tolbooth. Matthew seems to have collected toll (perhaps for Herod Antipas) from cargoes of boats which crossed the lake. Herod Antipas paid a certain annual sum to the Romans, but was allowed to collect the revenue himself. Matthew may have been a tax-gatherer for Herod Antipas—who seems to have been allowed to manage his own taxes—(see Jos. Antt. XIV. 10 § 8) and not for the Romans; but even in that case he would share almost equally with a man like Zacchaeus the odium with which his class was regarded. For the Herods were mere creatures of the Caesars (Jos. Antt. XVII. 11 § 6). Probably the “toll” was connected with the traffic of the Lake, and St Matthew is rightly described in Hebrew as ‘Baal abarah’ ‘lord of the passage.’
ἀκολούθει μοι. In appointing alike a Publican and a Zealot to be His Apostles our Lord shewed His divine independence and large-hearted love for all men. The Apostolate of a Publican would excite religious rancour; that of a Zealot would involve political suspicion. It might, too, have seemed impossible that men who were in such violent opposition to each other should ever work together. But Christ’s controlling power fused all antagonisms into a common zeal, and at His touch each character gave out its peculiar spark of light.
Verses 27-39
27–39. THE CALL AND FEAST OF LEVI. ON FASTING. THE NEW AND THE OLD
Verse 28
28. καταλιπὼν πάντα. It is most probable that St Matthew, like the sons of Jona and of Zebedee, had known something of our Lord before this call. If Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 2:14) be the same as the father of James the Less, and the same as Clopas (John 19:25) the husband of Mary, and if this Mary was the sister of the Virgin, then James and Matthew were cousins of Jesus. The inferences are uncertain, but early Christian tradition points in this direction. It was a rare but not unknown custom to call two sisters by the same names. All such details must be left to conjectural inferences, for ‘the Gospels leave in the shadow all the secondary actors in the great drama.’ The supposition of Heracleon, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ewald, and Keim, that Levi and Matthew were different persons has, however, nothing in its favour.
Verse 29
29. ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην. This shews that Matthew had something to sacrifice when he “left all.” Δοχὴ literally means ‘reception.’ It only occurs again in Luke 14:13.
ἦν. ‘Was present.’ Comp. Luke 5:17.
ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν. Comp. Luke 15:1. The tax-gatherers in their deep, and not wholly undeserved unpopularity, would be naturally touched by the countenance and kindness of the Sinless One.
ἦσαν … κατακείμενοι. ‘Were reclining’ (at table).
Verse 30
30. ἐγόγγυζον. This Ionic onomatopœia is common in Hellenistic Greek.
οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν. ‘The Pharisees and their scribes,’ i.e. those who were the authorised teachers of the company present. The Scribes (Sopherîm from Sepher ‘a book’) were a body which had sprung up after the exile, whose function it was to copy and explain the Law. The ‘words of the scribes’ were the nucleus of the body of tradition known as ‘the oral law.’ The word was a general term, for technically the Sopherim had been succeeded by the Tanaîm or ‘repeaters’ from B.C. 300 to A.D. 220, who drew up the Halachôth or ‘rules;’ and they by the Amoraim. The tyranny of pseudo-orthodoxy which they had established, and the terrorism with which it was enforced, were denounced by our Lord (Luke 11:37-54) in terms of which the burning force can best be understood by seeing from the Talmud how crushing were the ‘secular chains’ in which they had striven to bind the free conscience of the people—chains which it became His compassion to burst (see Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. 140).
πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ. They had not yet learnt to break the spell of awe which surrounded the Master, and so they attacked the ‘unlearned and ignorant’ Apostles. The murmurs must have reached the ears of Jesus after the feast, unless we imagine that some of these dignified teachers, who of course could not sit down at the meal, came and looked on out of curiosity. The house of an Oriental is perfectly open, and any one who likes may enter it.
μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. ‘With the publicans and sinners.’ The article is found in nearly all the uncials.
Verse 31
31. οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες. ‘Those in sound health.’ Our Lord’s words had both an obvious and a deeper meaning. As regards the ordinary duties and respectability of life these provincial scribes and Pharisees were really “whole” as compared with the flagrant “sinfulness” of the tax-gatherers and “sinners.” In another and even a more dangerous sense they were themselves “sinners” who fancied only that they had no need of Jesus (Revelation 3:17-18). They did not yet feel their own sickness, and the day had not yet come when they were to be told of it both in parables (Luke 18:11-13) and in terms of terrible plainness (Matthew 23), “Difficulter ad sanitatem pervenimus, quia nos aegrotare nescimus.” Sen. Ep. 50. 4.
Verse 32
32. οὐκ ἐλήλυθα. ‘I am not come.’
δικαίους. ‘Righteous persons.’ This also was true in two senses. Our Lord came to seek and save the lost. He came not to the elder son but to the prodigal; not to the folded flock but to the straying sheep. In a lower and external sense these Pharisees were really, as they called themselves, ‘the righteous’ (chasidim). In another sense they were only self-righteous and self-deceived (Luke 18:9). St Matthew tells us that He further rebuked their haughty and pitiless exclusiveness by borrowing one of their own formulæ, and bidding them “go and learn” the meaning of Hosea 6:6, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” i.e. love is better than legal scrupulosity; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7. The invariable tendency of an easy and pride-stimulating externalism when it is made a substitute for heart-religion is the most callous hypocrisy. The Pharisees were condemned not by Christ only but by their own Pharisaic Talmud, and after A.D. 70 the very name fell into such discredit among the Jews themselves as a synonym for greed and hypocrisy that it became a reproach and was dropped as a title (Jost, Gesch. d. Juden. IV. 76; Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. 140; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Matthew 3:7).
Verse 33
33. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν. St Luke here omits the remarkable fact that the disciples of John, who still formed a distinct body, joined the Pharisees in asking this question. It is clear that they were sometimes actuated by a not unnatural human jealousy, from which their great teacher was wholly free (John 3:26), but which Jesus always treated with the utmost tenderness (Luke 7:24-28). The question may very likely have been put on one of the bi-weekly Pharisaic fasts—Monday and Thursday (Luke 18:12), and this may explain the ἦσαν νηστεύοντες of Mark 2:18.
οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνά. They would naturally adopt the ascetic habits of the Baptist.
δεήσεις ποιοῦνται. ‘Make supplications.’ St Paul twice uses the same phrase, Philippians 1:4; 1 Timothy 2:1. Of course the disciples prayed: but perhaps they did not use so “much speaking” nor connect their prayers with fastings. The preservation of these words by St Luke alone, in spite of the emphasis which he lays on prayer, shews his perfect fidelity.
οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων. Those who in Jewish writings are so often spoken of as the ‘pupils of the wise.’ See on Luke 18:12, “I fast twice in the week.” Our Lord points out how much self-seeking and hypocrisy were mingled with their fasting, Matthew 6:16, and the prophets had forcibly taught the utter uselessness of an abstinence dissociated from goodness and charity (Isaiah 58:3-6; Micah 6:6-8; Amos 5:21-24).
Verses 33-39
EXCURSUS III
ON PUTTING NEW (νέον) WINE INTO FRESH (καινοὺς) BOTTLES
It is usually considered a sufficient explanation of this passage to say that the ‘bottles’ of the ancients were skins, and not bottles of glass; and that whereas fermenting wine would burst old, worn, and suncracked skins, it would only distend new skins.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether such an explanation is tenable.
α. It is quite true that the ‘bottles’ of the East were skins, as the Greek word ἀσκὸς implies[430]. They are still made in the East exactly as they used to be made thousands of years ago, by skinning an animal from the neck, cutting off the head and legs, and drawing off the skin without making a slit in the belly. The legs and neck are then tightly tied and sewn up, and the skin with the hair on it is steeped in tannin and pitched at the sutures (Tristram, Nat. Hist. Bib., p. 92).
β. It is also quite true that ‘wine’ must here mean the juice of the grape which has not yet fermented, ‘must,’ as this explanation implies. For ‘still wine’—wine after fermentation—may be put in any bottles whether old or new. It has no tendency to burst the bottles that contain it.
γ. But unfermented wine which was intended to ferment certainly could not be kept in any kind of leather bottle whether old or new. The fermentation would split open the sutures of the leather, however new the bottle was.
δ. It seems, therefore, to be a very probable conclusion that our Lord is not thinking at all of fermented, intoxicating wine, but of ‘must’—the liquid which the Greeks called ἀεὶ γλεῦκος—tuns of which are kept for years in France, and in the East; which (as is here stated) improves by age; which is a rich and refreshing, but non-intoxicating beverage; and which might be kept with perfect safety in new leather bottles.
ε. Why, then, would it be unsafe to put the must in old bottles? Because if the old bottles had contained ‘wine’ in the ordinary sense—i.e. the fermented juice of the grape—or other materials, “minute portions of albuminoid matter would be left adhering to the skin, and receive yeast germs from the air, and keep them in readiness to set up fermentation in the new unfermented contents of the skin.… As soon as the unfermented grape-juice was introduced, the yeast germs would begin to grow in the sugar and to develop carbonic dioxide. If the must contained one-fifth sugar it would develop 47 times its volume of gas, and produce an enormous pressure which no bottle, new or old, could withstand.”
Unless, therefore, some other explanation can be produced, it is at least possible—if not most probable—that our Lord, in speaking of ‘wine,’ here means must.
Thus much is at any rate certain:—the conditions of our Lord’s comparison are not fulfilled either by fermented wine, or by grape-juice intended for fermentation. Fermented wine could be kept as well in old bottles as in new; and grape-juice intended to ferment would burst far stronger receptacles than the newest leathern bottle. See Job 32:19. “The rending force of the pent-up gas would burst even the strongest iron-bound cask.” When fermentation is intended, it goes on in the wine-vat.
Columella, an almost contemporary Latin writer, describing the then common process of preserving grape-juice in the form of unfermented must, lays the same stress on its being put into a new amphora.
Verse 34
34. μή; num?
τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος. This is a Hebraism for the friends of the bridegroom—the paranymphs—who accompanied him to meet the bride and her maidens; Judges 14:11. The question would be specially forcible to John’s disciples who had heard him speak of “the joy of the friend of the bridegroom” (John 3:29).
νυμφῶνος. Compare the words παρθενών, γυναικών.
ὁ νυμφίος. The term implies a fully-developed Messianic consciousness in the speaker (Hosea 2:19).
νηστεῦσαι. St Matthew (Matthew 9:15) uses the word ‘mourn’ which makes the antithesis more striking (John 16:20).
Verse 35
35. ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι. ‘But there will come days.’
καὶ ὅταν ἀπαρθῆ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος. ‘And when’ (καὶ ABD). Comp. John 16:16, “A little while and ye shall not see me.” The verb used—ἀπαρθῇ—occurs nowhere else in the N. T., though we have ἐξαρθῇ (1 Corinthians 5:2). It clearly points to a violent end. This is memorable as being the earliest recorded public intimation of His crucifixion, of which a dim hint (“even so shall the Son of man be lifted up”) had been given privately to Nicodemus (John 3:14).
τότε νηστεύσουσιν. As we are told that they did, Acts 13:2-3. Observe that it is not said, ‘then shall ye be able to insist on their fasting.’ The Christian fasts would be voluntary, not compulsory; the result of a felt need, not the observance of a rigid command. Our Lord never entered fully into the subject of fasting, and it is clear that throughout the Bible it is never enjoined as a frequent duty, though it is sanctioned and encouraged as an occasional means of grace. In the Law only one day in the year—the Kippur, or Day of Atonement—was appointed as a fast (Leviticus 16:29; Numbers 29:7). After the exile four annual fasts had arisen, but the prophets do not enjoin them (Zechariah 7:1-12; Zechariah 8:19), nor did our Lord in any way approve (or apparently practise) the two weekly fasts of the Pharisees (Luke 18:12). Probably the reason why fasting has never been commanded as a universal and constant duty is that it produces very different effects on different temperaments, and according to the testimony of some who have tried it most seriously, acts in some cases as a powerful stimulus to temptation. It is remarkable that the words “and fasting” are probably the interpolations of an ascetic bias in Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; Acts 10:30; 1 Corinthians 7:5, though fasting is implied in Matthew 6:16. Fasting is not commanded and is not forbidden. The Christian is free (Romans 14:5), but must, while temperate in all things, do exactly that which he finds most conducive to his spiritual and moral welfare. For now the bridegroom is not taken from us but is with us (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5-6; John 14:16; John 16:7).
Verse 36
36. ἔλεγεν δὲ καί. St Luke uses the phrase to introduce some fresh development or illustration of the subject. See Leviticus 13:54; Leviticus 14:12; Leviticus 16:1; Leviticus 18:1. Here our Lord’s remarks bear on the question just discussed, Moses had only appointed one annual fast—the Great Day of Atonement. The two weekly fasts of the Pharisees were mere ceremonial surplusage, belonging to their “hedge around the law.”
οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας. ‘No one rending a patch from a new garment putteth it upon an old garment.’ The word σχίσας ‘rending’ though omitted in our version is found in א ABDL. Our Lord delighted in using these homely metaphors which brought the truth within the comprehension of His humblest hearers. St Matthew (Matthew 9:16) has ‘a patch of unteazled cloth.’ To tear a piece out of a new garment in order to patch an old one is a folly never committed literally, but a very common religious and theological process.
ἱμάτιον παλαιόν. The Levitic dispensation which was already παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον (Hebrews 8:13). The old garment of externalism could not be patched up by tearing pieces out of the new garment of spiritual service.
εἰ δὲ μήγε. This collocation occurs five times in this Gospel, and in Matthew 6:1; 2 Corinthians 11:16.
καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει. ‘He will both rend the new.’ The inferior readings adopted by the E. V. make us lose sight of the fact that there is a treble mischief implied, namely, [1] the rending of the new to patch the old; [2] the incongruity of the mixture; [3] the increase of the rent of the old. The latter is mentioned only by St Matthew, but is implied by the bursten skins of the next similitude. Our Lord is referring to the proposal to enforce the ascetic leanings of the forerunner, and the Pharisaic regulations which had become a parasitic growth on the old dispensation, upon the glad simplicity of the new dispensation. To act thus, was much the same thing as using the Gospel by way of a mere adjunct to—a mere purple patch upon—the old garment of the Law. The teaching of Christ was a new and seamless robe which would only be spoilt by being rent. It was impossible to tear a few doctrines and precepts from Christianity, and use them as ornaments and improvements of Mosaism. If this were attempted [1] the Gospel would be maimed by the rending from its entirety; [2] the contrast between the new and the old system would be made more glaring; [3] the decay of the evanescent institutions would only be violently accelerated. Notice how distinctly these comparisons imply the ultimate abrogation of the Law.
οὐ συμφωνήσει. ‘Will not agree.’
Verse 37
37. ἀσκούς. ‘Wine-skins.’ Our Lord often illustrates two aspects of the same truth by a pair of parables (e.g. the Hid Treasure and the Pearl; the Sower and the Tares, &c.). The skins used for holding wine were apt to get seamed and cracked, and old wine-skins would tend to set up the process of fermentation. They could contain the motionless, but they could not expand with the fermenting. To explain this passage, see Excursus III.
Verse 38
38. οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς. ‘New wine into fresh wineskins.’ The new spirit requires fresh forms for its expression and preservation; the vigour of youth cannot be bound in the swaddling-bands of infancy. It is impossible to be both ‘under the Law’ and ‘under grace.’ The Hebraising Christians against whom St Paul had to wage his lifelong battle—those Judaisers who tried to ruin his work in Galatia, Corinth, and Rome—had failed to grasp the meaning of precisely these truths. It is astonishing—if anything in Biblical exegesis could be astonishing—that Wetstein should suppose the new wine to be a metaphor for ‘Pharisaic austerity,’ or that any commentators should suppose that by ‘new wine’ Christ meant austerity at all (comp. Matthew 26:29). The meaning is perfectly clear, the fruit of the Christian Vine is not to be stored in the old, seamy, and corrupted wineskins of an abrogated legalism, any more than the old garment of the Levitic system is to be patched by pieces cut out of the Gospel. The incongruity of the old and the new is illustrated by both suppositions. Godet well points out how our Lord infuses into these few words the essence of the Pauline Gospel which is so elaborately developed in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.
Verse 39
39. πιὼν παλαιόν. The reading of the Rec[124] gives a complete iambic πιὼν παλαιὸν εὐθέως θέλει νέον as in Luke 5:21, but εὐθέως is a gloss omitted by א BCL, and several Versions, &c. This verse is peculiar to St Luke, and is characteristic of his fondness for all that is most tender and gracious. It is an expression of considerateness towards the inveterate prejudices engendered by custom and system: a kind allowance for the reluctance of the Pharisees and the disciples of John to abandon the old systems to which they had been accustomed. The spirit for which our Lord here (as it were) offers an apology is the deep-rooted human tendency to prefer old habits to new lights, and stereotyped formulae to fresh truths. It is the unprogressive spirit which relies simply on authority, precedent, and tradition, and says, ‘It was good enough for my father, it is good enough for me;’ ‘It will last my time,’ &c. The expression itself seems to have been a Jewish proverb (Nedarim, f. 66. 1).
ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν. The bigot will not go so far as to admit (which χρηστότερος would imply) that the new is in any way ‘good.’ ‘The old is excellent’ (א BL, &c.). The reading of the E. V., χρηστότερος, is inferior, since the man, having declined to drink the new, can institute no comparison between it and the old. The wine which at the beginning has been set forth to him is good (John 2:10), and he assumes that only ‘that which is worse’ can follow. On the general comparison see Sirach 9:10; John 2:10. Gess has pointed out (Christi Zeugniss) how pregnant with meaning is this brief passage in which Christ indicates the novelty of His Gospel, His dignity as bridegroom, and His violent death. Godet adds that the first of these three parables anticipates the doctrine of St Paul, the second his work among Gentiles, and the third his accommodating method. It is characteristic of the crude dogmatism of Marcion, with his hatred to the Old Testament and the Law, that he omits Luke 5:39 which is also omitted in D.
06 Chapter 6
Verse 1
1. ἐγένετο … καὶ ἔτιλλον. This is a Hebraism. The ἐγένετο is really pleonastic (comp. Luke 5:1; Luke 5:12, Luke 9:51, and for the construction without καί, Luke 1:8; Luke 1:41, Luke 2:1). The idiom is specially common in St Luke owing to the Aramaic documents which he used. In Classic Greek we should have had simply διεπορεύετο and ἔτυχε διαπορευόμενος.
ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. ‘On the second-first sabbath.’ St Luke gives this unique note of time without a word to explain it, and scholars have not—and probably never will—come to an agreement as to its exact meaning. The only analogy to the word is the δευτεροδεκάτη or second tenth in Jerome on Ezekiel 45 and δευτερέσχατος last but one in Heliodorus. Of the ten or more suggested explanations, omitting those which are wholly arbitrary and impossible, we may mention the following.
α. The first Sabbath of the second month (Wetstein).
β. The first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover (Scaliger, Ewald, De Wette, Neander, Keim, &c.).
γ. The first Sabbath of the second year in the Sabbatic cycle of seven years (Wieseler).
δ. The first Sabbath of the Ecclesiastical year. The Jewish year had two beginnings, the civil year began in Tisri (mid-September); the ecclesiastical year in Nisan (mid-March).
The first-first Sabbath may therefore have been a name given to the first Sabbath of the civil year in autumn; and second-first to the first Sabbath of the ecclesiastical year in spring (Godet).
ε. The Pentecostal Sabbath—the Paschal Sabbath being regarded as the protoproton or first-first (Corn. à Lapide).
These and similar explanations must be left as unsupported conjectures in the absence of any decisive trace of such Sabbatical nomenclature among the Jews. It is idle to attempt an explanation of a word so obscure that not a single datum for its use is furnished by the LX[131], by Philo, by Josephus or even in that enormous cyclopaedia of micrology, the Talmud. It is still more idle when the word is almost demonstrably spurious. We can see how it may have found its way into the MSS., and it must be regarded as certain that St Luke writing for Gentiles would either not have used such a word at all, or at any rate not have used it without an explanation. Even Chrysostom and Theophylact have nothing but untenable suggestions to offer. But we may remark that
[1] The reading itself cannot be regarded as probable, much less certain, since it is omitted in א BL, and in several important versions, including the Syriac and Coptic. Hence of modern editors Tregelles and Meyer omit it; Lachmann and Alford put it in brackets. Its insertion may be conceivably accounted for by marginal annotations. Thus if a copyist put ‘first’ in the margin with reference to the “other” Sabbath of Luke 6:6 it would have been corrected by some succeeding copyist into ‘second’ with reference to Luke 4:31; and the two may have been combined in hopeless perplexity. If it be said that this is unlikely, it seems at least equally unlikely that it should either wilfully or accidentally have been omitted if it formed part of the original text. And why should St Luke writing for Gentiles use without explanation a word to them perfectly meaningless and so highly technical that in all the folio volumes of Jewish Literature there is not a single trace of it?
[2] The exact discovery of what the word means is only important as a matter of archaeology. Happily there can be no question as to the time of year at which the incident took place. The narrative seems to imply that the ears which the disciples plucked and rubbed were ears of wheat not of barley. Now the first ripe sheaf of barley was offered at the Passover (in spring) and the first ripe wheat sheaf at Pentecost (fifty days later). Wheat would ripen earlier in the rich deep hollow of Gennesareth. In any case therefore the time of year was spring or early summer, and the Sabbath (whether the reading be correct or not) was probably some Sabbath in the month Nisan.
διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων. Comp. Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28. St Mark uses the curious expression that “He went along through the corn fields” apparently in a path between two fields—“and His disciples began to make a way by plucking the corn ears.” All that we can infer from this is that Jesus was walking apart from His Apostles, and that He did not Himself pluck the corn.
ἔτιλλον … τοὺς στάχυας. This shews their hunger and poverty, especially if the corn was barley. They were permitted by the Law to do this—“When thou comest into the standing-corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand,” Deuteronomy 23:25. St Matthew in his “began to pluck” shews how eagerly and instantly the Pharisees clutched at the chance of finding fault.
ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. It was this act which constituted the gravamen of their offence.
Verses 1-5
Luke 6:1-5. THE DISCIPLES PLUCK THE EARS OF CORN ON THE SABBATH. (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.)
Verse 2
2. τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων. On the Jewish sects see Excursus VI. As the chronological sequence of the incident is uncertain, these may be some of the spy-Pharisees who as Christ’s ministry advanced dogged His steps (Matthew 15:1; Mark 3:22; Mark 7:1), in the base and demoralising desire to convict Him of heresy or violation of the Law. Perhaps they wished to see whether He would exceed the regulated Sabbath day’s journey of 2000 cubits (Exodus 16:29). We have already met with some of the carping criticisms dictated by their secret hate, Luke 5:14; Luke 5:21; Luke 5:30.
τί ποιεῖτε; In St Mark the question is scornfully addressed to Jesus. “See why do they (pointing at the Apostles) do on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?”
ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν. The point was this. Since the Law had said that the Jews were “to do no manner of work” on the Sabbath, the Oral Law had laid down thirty-nine principal prohibitions which were assigned to the authority of the Great Synagogue and which were called abhôth ‘fathers’ or chief rules. From these were deduced a vast multitude of toldôth ‘descendants’ or derivative rules. Now ‘reaping’ and ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath day were forbidden by the abhôth; and by the toldôth it was asserted that plucking corn-ears was a kind of reaping, and rubbing them a kind of threshing. But while they paid servile attention to these trivialities the Pharisees “omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith” (Matthew 22:23). The vitality of these artificial notions among the Jews is extraordinary. Abarbanel relates that when in 1492 the Jews were expelled from Spain, and were forbidden to enter the city of Fez lest they should cause a famine, they lived on grass; yet even in this state ‘religiously avoided the violation of their Sabbath by plucking the grass with their hands.’ To avoid this they took the much more laborious method of grovelling on their knees, and cropping it with their teeth!
Verse 3
3. οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε; ‘Have ye not even read this?’ He answers them in one of their own formulae, but with a touch of irony at their ignorance, which we trace also in the “Did ye never read?” of St Mark;—never though ye are Scribes and devote all your time to the Scriptures? Perhaps the reproving question may have derived an additional sting from the fact that the very passage which our Lord quoted (1 Samuel 21:1-6) had been read on that Sabbath as the Haphtarah of the day. The service for the day must have been over, because no meal was eaten till then. This fact does not however help us to determine which was the second-first Sabbath, because the present Jewish lectionary is of later date.
καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτοῦ ὄντες. That the day on which this occurred was a Sabbath results from the fact that it was only on the Sabbath that the new shewbread was placed on the table, Leviticus 24:8-9. Christ might simply have answered the Pharisees by laying down the principle that moral necessities abrogate ceremonial obligation. But the concrete instance from their own Scriptures was more convincing. The divine readiness and absolute cogency of our Lord’s replies at once mark His Messianic dignity.
Verse 4
4. τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. Vulg[132] panes propositionis. Literally, ‘loaves of setting forth;’ “continual bread,” Numbers 4:7; “Bread of the Face,” i.e. set before the Presence of God, Leviticus 24:6-7. Comp. “Angel of the Face,” Leviticus 24:6-8; Exodus 25:30; Exodus 29:33. They were twelve unleavened loaves sprinkled with frankincense placed on a little golden table.
ἔλαβεν καὶ ἔφαγεν. St Mark says that this was “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” The priest who actually gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar.
οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς. “It shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him,” Leviticus 24:9. Thus David, their favourite saint and hero, had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity,—in other words because mercy is better than sacrifice; and because the higher law of moral obligation must always supersede the lower law of ceremonial. This was a proof by way of fact from the Kethubhim or sacred books (Hagiographa); in St Matthew our Lord adds a still more striking argument by way of principle from the Law itself. By its own provisions the priests in the laborious work of offering sacrifices violated the Sabbath and yet were blameless. Hence the later Jews deduced the remarkable rule that “there is no sabbatism in the Temple” (Numbers 28:9). And Jesus added “But I say to you there is something greater (μεῖζον) than the Temple here.” The appeal to their own practice is given in Luke 14:5.
Verse 5
5. καὶ ἔλεγεν. Marking a weighty addition to the subject, see Luke 5:36. The following utterance is one of Christ’s great intimations of Christian freedom from mere legalism.
κύριος … καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. ‘Lord even of the Sabbath,’ though you regard the Sabbath as the most important command of the whole Law. In St Mark we have further, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
This was one of no less than six great occasions on which the fury of the Pharisees had been excited by the open manner in which our Lord set aside as frivolous and unauthoritative the burdens which the Oral Law had attached to the Sabbath. The other instances are the healing of the cripple at Bethesda (John 5:1-16); the healing of the withered hand (Luke 6:1-11); of the blind man at Siloam (John 9:1-41); of the paralytic woman (Luke 13:14-17); and of the man with the dropsy (Luke 14:1-6). In laying His axe at the root of a proud and ignorant Sabbatarianism, He was laying His axe at the root of all that “miserable micrology” which they had been accustomed to take for religious life. They had turned the Sabbath from a holy delight into a revolting bondage. The Apocryphal Gospels are following a true tradition in the prominence which they give to Sabbath healing, as a charge against Him on His trial before the Sanhedrin.
In the famous Cambridge Manuscript (D), the Codex Bezae, there is here added the following passage: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς μακάριος εἶ· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. “On the same day, observing one working on the Sabbath, He said to him O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed: but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed, and a transgressor of the Law.” This very remarkable addition cannot be accepted as genuine on the authority of a single MS., and can only be regarded as one of the agrapha dogmata, or ‘unrecorded traditional sayings’ of our Lord. The meaning of the story is that ‘if thy work is of faith,—if thou art thoroughly persuaded in thy own mind—thou art acting with true insight; but if thy work is not of faith, it is sin.’ See Romans 14:22-23; 1 Corinthians 8:1. What renders the incident improbable is that no Jew would dare openly to violate the Law by working on the Sabbath, an act which rendered him legally liable to be stoned. The anecdote, as Grotius thought, may have been written in the margin by some follower of Marcion, who rejected the inspiration of the Old Testament.
Verse 6
6. εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6. None of the Evangelists enable us to decide on the time or place when the healing occurred.
ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ. Obviously he had come in the hope of being healed; and even this the Pharisees regarded as reprehensible, Luke 13:14. The Gospel of the Ebionites adds that he was a stonemason, maimed by an accident, and that he implored Jesus to heal him, that he might not have to beg his bread (Jerome on Matthew 12:10).
Verses 6-11
6–11. THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND
Verse 7
7. παρετηροῦντο δέ. See Luke 20:20. The verb implies that they watched, ex obliquo et occulto (Bengel). The followers of Shammai, at that epoch the most powerful of the Pharisaic Schools, were so strict about the Sabbath, that they held it a violation of the Law to tend the sick, or even to console them on that day. (Shabbath, 12. 1.) Hence what the Pharisees were waiting to see was whether He was going to side with them in their Sabbatic views, or with the more lax Sadducees, whom the people detested. If He did the latter, they thought that they could ruin the popularity of the Great Prophet. But in this, as in every other instance, [1] our Lord absolutely refuses to be guided by the popular orthodoxy of the hour, however tyrannous and ostensibly deduced from Scripture; and [2] ignores every consideration of party in order to appeal to principles.
εἰ θεραπεύει, ‘whether He intends to heal.’ The present being a continuous or imperfect tense often implies an intention or an attempt (conatus rei perficiendae) as here, ‘whether He is for healing.’ Comp. John 5:32, λιθάζετέ με; Do ye mean to stone me? John 13:6, σὺ μοῦ νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; Dost Thou mean to wash my feet? See Winer, p. 332. The other reading, θεραπεύσει, is a more commonplace idiom.
ἵνα εὕρωσιν. According to the ordinary law of the sequence of tenses the word here should have been the optative, “They watched him that they might find.” No doubt the subj. is sometimes substituted for the optative, even by classical writers, to make the narrative more picturesque (πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποιεῖν). In Hellenistic writers however the rule of the sequence of tenses is constantly violated, because of the gradual obsolescence of the optative, which was chiefly used in literary language. See Winer, p. 360.
Verse 8
8. τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν, ‘their reasonings.’
ξηρὰν … τὴν χεῖρα. The predicative adjective is placed before the article according to the common Greek idiom.
Verse 9
9. ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς. ‘I further ask you.’ Implying that He had already addressed some questions to their consciences on this subject, or perhaps because they had asked Him, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’ Matthew 12:10. But St Luke here omits several dramatic incidents of the narrative.
ἀγαθοποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι. The aorists point to single acts of good or evil. He was intending to work a miracle for good; they were secretly plotting to do harm,—their object being, if possible, to put Him to death. They received this question in stolid silence. Mark 3:4.
ψυχήν, ‘a life.’
Verse 10
10. περιβλεψάμενος πάντας αὐτούς. St Mark adds ‘with anger, being grieved at the callousness (πώρωσιν, Romans 11:25) of their hearts.’ περιβλέψας would have been used here by a classic writer.
ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου. Compare 1 Kings 13:4.
ἀπεκατεστάθη. The form also occurs in Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5. Holzmann (Schenkel, Bibel-Lex. s.v. Evangelien) inferred that all three Synoptists were using a common written document; but this 1st aor. pass. occurs in the LXX[133] (Jeremiah 23:8, &c.), and apparently also in Callimachus.
Verse 11
11. ἀνοίας, ‘unreasonableness.’ The word occurs in the N. T. only in 2 Timothy 3:9. Plato (Tim. p. 86, 3) says that there are two kinds of ἄνοια, namely μανία and ἀμαθία, i.e. brutal and wilful ignorance. Here the word implies dementia, senselessness, the frenzy of obstinate prejudice. It admirably characterises the state of ignorant hatred which is disturbed in the fixed conviction of its own infallibility. (2 Timothy 3:9.) The two first miracles (Luke 4:35; Luke 4:39) had excited no opposition, because none of these religious spies and heresy-hunters (Luke 20:20) were present.
διελάλουν, ‘began to commune.’ This public miracle and public refutation clinched their hatred against Him (Matthew 12:14. Comp. John 11:53).
πρὸς ἀλλήλους. St Mark adds that they conferred with the Herodians. This shews the extremity of their hate, for hitherto the Pharisees had regarded the Herodians as a half-apostate political party, more nearly allied to the Sadducees, and ready with them to sacrifice the true interests of their country and faith. St Matthew (Matthew 12:14) says that they actually “held a council against Him.”
τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν. The other reading ποιήσειαν (found in some MSS.)—the Aeolic aorist—implies extreme perplexity. It occurs only here in the N.T. and in Acts 17:27, ψηλαφήσειαν. For the ἂν with the indirect question comp. Luke 1:62, Luke 9:46. Here it implies that they weighed the possible steps; quid forte faciendum videretur. See Winer, p. 386.
Verse 12
12. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις, ‘in these days,’ wearied with their incessant espionage and opposition. Probably these two last incidents belong to a later period in the ministry, following the Sermon on the Mount (as in St Matthew) and the bright acceptable Galilaean year of our Lord’s work. In any case we have here, from Luke 6:12 to Luke 8:56, a splendid cycle of Messianic work in Galilee in the gladdest epoch of Christ’s ministry, and it will be seen that it consists of 12 incidents. These symmetrical combinations are generally intentional.
εἰς τὸ ὄρος, ‘into the mountain,’ with special reference to the Kurn Hattîn, or Horns of Hattîn, the traditional and almost certainly the actual scene of the Sermon on the Mount.
ἦν διανυκτερεύων. The analytic imperfect which we have already met several times heightens the sense of continuance. The verb διανυκτερεύω, ‘I pass the whole night,’ is unique in the N.T., though found in Xenophon and Plutarch. The verb is formed on the analogy of διημερεύω.
ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. The expression used is peculiar. It is literally “in the prayer of God.” Hence some have supposed that it should be rendered “in the prayer-house of God.” The word προσευχὴ meant in Greek not only ‘prayer,’ but also ‘prayer-house,’ as in the question to a poor person in Juvenal, “In what proseucha am I to look for you?” The προσευχαὶ were merely walled spaces without roof, set apart as places of worship where there was no synagogue, as at Philippi (Acts 16:13). There is however here an insuperable difficulty in thus understanding the words; for προσευχαὶ were generally, if not invariably, in close vicinity to running water (Jos. Antt. XIV. 10, § 23), for purposes of ritual ablution, nor do we ever hear of their being built on hills. On the other hand, if τὸ ὄρος mean only ‘the mountainous district,’ this objection is not fatal. For another instance of a night spent on a mountain in prayer, see Matthew 14:23.
Verses 12-19
12–19. THE SELECTION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
Verse 13
13. δώδεκα. Doubtless with a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel.
οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν. The word means primarily messengers,’ as in Philippians 2:25. It is a translation of the Hebrew Sheloochim, who often acted as emissaries of the Synagogue (comp. Mark 3:14, ἴνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτούς). It is used 36 times by St Luke , 21 times by St Paul. In the other Gospels it only occurs in this sense in Mark 6:30; Matthew 10:2; and only once in the LXX[134], 1 Kings 14:6. It has two usages in the N.T., one general (John 13:16; Romans 16:7; Hebrews 3:1), and one special (1 Corinthians 9:1 and passim). The call of the Apostles was now necessitated both by the widespread fame of our Lord, and the deadly animosity already kindled against Him. Their training soon became the most important part of His work on earth.
Verse 14
14. Σίμωνα. Lists of the twelve Apostles are given in four passages of Scripture in the following order:
|Matthew 10:2-4. |Mark 3:16-19. |Luke 6:14-16. |Acts 1:13. |
|Simon |Simon |Simon |Peter |
|Andrew |James |Andrew |James |
|James |John |James |John |
|John |Andrew |John |Andrew |
|Philip |Philip |Philip |Philip |
|Bartholomew |Bartholomew |Bartholomew |Thomas |
|Thomas |Matthew |Matthew |Bartholomew |
|Matthew |Thomas |Thomas |Matthew |
|James of Alphaeus |James of Alphaeus |James of Alphaeus |James of Alphaeus |
|Lebbaeus |Thaddaeus |Simon Zelotes |Simon Zelotes |
|Simon the Kananite |Simon the Kananite |Jude of James |Jude of James |
|Judas Iscariot |Judas Iscariot |Judas Iscariot |[Judas Iscariot] |
In reading these four independent lists several facts are remarkable.
i. Each list falls into three tetrads, and the last two tetrads are arranged in slightly varying pairs. “The Apostolic College was formed of three concentric circles—each less closely intimate with Jesus than the last.” Godet.
ii. In each tetrad the names refer to the same persons though the order is different.
iii. In each list the first of each tetrad is the same—viz. Simon, Philip, and James son of Alphaeus; not as ‘supreme among inferior, but as first among equals.’
iv. In each list Simon stands first; and Judas Iscariot last, as the ‘son of perdition.’
v. Not only do the Apostles seem to be named in the order of their eminence and nearness to Christ, but the first four seem to stand alone (in the Acts the first four are separated by “and;” the rest are ranged in pairs). The first four were the ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκλεκτότεροι—the chosen of the chosen; the ecclesiola in ecclesia. Andrew, who is named last in St Mark and the Acts, though belonging to the inmost band of Apostles (Mark 13:3) and though the earliest of them all (John 1:40) was yet less highly honoured than the other three (who are the θεολογικώτατοι at the healing of Jairus’s daughter, Mark 5:37; at the Transfiguration, Matthew 17:1; and in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:37). He seems to have been a link of communication between the first and second tetrads (John 12:22; John 6:8).
vi. The first five Apostles were of Bethsaida; and all the others seem to have been Galilaeans with the single exception of Judas Iscariot, who belonged to a Jewish town (see Luke 6:15). The only Greek names are those of Philip and Andrew (see John 12:21-22). At this time however many Jews bore Greek names.
vii. In the second tetrad it may be regarded as certain that Bartholomew (the son of Tolmai) is the disciple whom St John calls Nathanael. He may possibly have been Philip’s brother. St Matthew puts his own name last, and adds the title of reproach the tax-gatherer. In the two other Evangelists he precedes St Thomas. The name Thomas merely means ‘a twin’ (Didymus), and one tradition says that he was a twin-brother of Matthew, and that his name too was Jude (Euseb. H.E. I. 13).
viii. In the third tetrad we find one Apostle with three names. His real name was Jude, but as there was already one Jude among the Apostles, and as it was the commonest of Jewish names, and as there was also a Jude who was one of the ‘brethren of the Lord,’ he seems to have two surnames—Lebbaeus, from lebh, ‘heart,’ and Thaddaeus (another form of Theudas, Acts 5:36), from thad, ‘bosom’—possibly, as some have conjectured, from the warmth and tenderness of his disposition. (Very few follow Clemens of Alexandria and Ewald in trying to identify Lebbaeus and Levi.) This disciple is called by St Luke (viz. here and in Acts 1:13). “Jude of James,” or “James’s Jude,” and the English Version supplies the word “brother” (see Winer, p. 238). There is however no more decisive reason to supply “brother” (which is at any rate a very unusual ellipse) than in the former verse, where James is called “James of Alphaeus” (Chalpai, Klôpa, John 19:25, perhaps also Kleopas (Luke 24:18), since Jews often Graecised the form of their names). The word ‘brother,’ where needed, is expressed, as in Luke 6:14. This three-named disciple was probably a son of James (compare Nonnus John 14:22 Ἰουδὰς υἱὸς Ἰακώβοιο), and therefore a grandson of Alphaeus, and a nephew of Matthew and Thomas. James the son of Alphaeus is sometimes called “the Less;” but this seems to be a mistaken rendering of ὁ μικρὸς (Mark 15:40), which means ‘the short of stature.’ The other James is never called ‘the Great.’
ix. Simon Zelotes is called by St Matthew ‘the Kananite’ (ὁ Κανανίτης), or according to the better readings ‘the Kananean.’ The word does not mean “Canaanite,” as our Version incorrectly gives it, nor yet ‘inhabitant of Kana in Galilee,’ but means the same thing as ‘the Zealot,’ from Kineáh, ‘zeal.’ He had therefore once belonged to the sect of terrible fanatics—the Carbonari of Palestine—who thought any deed of violence justifiable for the recovery of national freedom. He may have been one of the wild followers of Judas the Gaulonite. (Jos. B. J. IV. 3, § 9, and passim.) The name ‘Zealot’ was derived from 1 Maccabees 2:50, where the dying Mattathias, father of Judas Maccabaeus, says to the Assidaeans (Chasidim, i.e. ‘all such as were voluntarily devoted to the law’) “Be ye zealous for the Law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers” (comp. 2 Maccabees 4:2). It shews our Lord’s divine wisdom and fearless universality of love that He should choose for Apostles two persons who had once been at such deadly opposition as a tax-gatherer and a zealot.
x. For “Judas Iscariot who also betrayed him” St Luke uses the milder description, ὃς ἐγένετο προδότης, ‘who became a traitor.’ The name Iscariot has nothing to do with askara, ‘strangulation,’ or sheker, ‘lie,’ but is in all probability Eesh Kerioth, ‘man of Kerioth,’ just as Istôbos stands in Josephus (Antt. VII. 6, § 1) for ‘man of Tôb.’ Kerioth (Joshua 15:25) is perhaps Kuryetein, ten miles from Hebron, in the southern border of Judah. If the reading “Iscariot” is right in John 6:71; John 13:26 (א BCGL), as applied also to Simon Zelotes, then, since Judas is called “son of Simon” (John 6:71), the last pair of Apostles were father and son. If Judas Iscariot had ever shared the wild Messianic patriotism of his father it would partly account for the recoil of disgust and disappointment which helped to ruin his earthly mind when he saw that he had staked all in the cause of one who was rejected and despised. Yet even Judas was a witness, and a very important one, to the perfect innocence of his Lord (Matthew 27:4).
xi. It is a deeply interesting fact, if it be a fact (and although it cannot be made out with certainty because it depends on data which are conjectural, and on tradition which is liable to error—it is still far from improbable) that so many of the Apostles were related to each other. Simon and Andrew were brothers; James and John were brothers, and, if Salome was a sister of the Virgin (comp. Mark 15:40; John 19:25), they were first cousins of our Lord; Philip and Bartholomew may have been brothers; Thomas, Matthew, and James were perhaps brothers and first cousins of our Lord; Lebbaeus, or ‘Jude of James,’ was His second cousin; Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot were perhaps father and son. Thus no less than half of the Apostles would have been actually related to our Lord, although His brethren did not believe on Him (John 7:5). The difficulty however of being sure of these combinations rises in part from the paucity of Jewish names, and therefore the extreme commonness of Simon, Jude, James, &c.
xii. The separate incidents in which individual Apostles are mentioned are as follows:
Peter: Prominent throughout; Luke 12:41, Luke 22:31; Matthew 16:16; Matthew 17:24; Matthew 19:27, &c.
|James, John: |} |Both prominent throughout. | |
| | |Boanerges; calling down fire; | |
| | |petition for precedence, &c. | |
James was the first Apostolic martyr; John the last survivor (Acts 12:2; John 21:22).
Andrew: the first disciple, John 1:40; with Jesus on Olivet, Mark 13:3.
Philip: “Follow me,” John 1:43; his frankness, John 6:7; the Greeks, id. Luke 12:22 : “shew us the Father,” id. Luke 14:8.
Bartholomew: “an Israelite indeed,” John 1:47; of Cana, John 21:2.
Matthew: his call, Luke 5:27-28.
Thomas: despondent yet faithful, John 11:16; John 14:5; John 20:25; John 21:2.
James son of Alphaeus: no incident.
Jude son of James: his perplexed question, John 14:22.
Simon Zelotes: no incident.
Judas Iscariot: the betrayal and ultimate suicide.
Verse 15
15. τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτήν. ‘Who was called the Zealot.’
Ἰσκαριώθ. This should, strictly, be rendered “an Iscariot,” i.e. a native of Kerioth, and sometimes “the Iscariot,” as in Matthew 10:4, &c. The reading of D in many passages is ἀπὸ Καριώτου. The name may be all the more significant because it perhaps marks out Judas as the only Jew among a band of Galilaean Apostles.
Verse 16
16. ὃς ἐγένετο προδότης. ‘Who became a traitor.’ “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” John 6:70; 1 John 2:17; typified by Ahithophel, Psalms 41:9. If it be asked why our Lord chose him, the answer is nowhere given to us, but we may reverently conjecture that Judas Iscariot, like all human beings, had in him germs of good which might have ripened into holiness, if he had resisted his besetting sin, and not flung away the battle of his life. It is clear that John (at least) among the Apostles had found him out (John 12:6), and that he had received from our Lord more than one solemn warning (John 12:15; John 18:25, &c.).
Verse 17
17. καὶ καταβὰς μετ' αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. ‘And descending with them, He stopped on a level place.’ τόπος πεδινός also occurs in Isaiah 13:2, LXX[135] If the phrase be thus rendered there is no discrepancy between St Luke and St Matthew, who says that “He went up into the mountain, and when He sat down His disciples approached Him” (Matthew 5:1). I believe that St Luke here meant to give such portions of the Sermon on the Mount as suited his design. Combining the two narratives with what we know of the scene, we see that what occurred was as follows. The previous evening Jesus went to one of the peaks of Kurn Hattin (withdrawing Himself from His disciples, who doubtless bivouacked at no great distance), and spent the night in prayer. In the morning He called His disciples and chose Twelve Apostles. Then going with them to some level spot, either the flat space (called in Greek πλάξ) between the two peaks of the hill, or some other spot near at hand, He preached His sermon primarily to His disciples, who sat immediately around Him, but also to the multitudes. There is no need to assume two discourses—one esoteric and one exoteric, &c. At the same time there is of course no difficulty in supposing that our Lord may have uttered the same discourse, or parts of the same discourse, more than once, varying it as occasion required. We need only notice for its curiosity the puerile fancy of Baur, that St Luke wished to degrade the Sermon on the Mount to a lower standpoint! Christ did not descend to the plain nor even, as the Genevan renders, to “the champaign country,” but, as Wyclif renders it with admirable fidelity both to the Greek and to the actual site, to a “fieldy place” (Vulg[136] in loco campestri).
ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας. St Matthew adds Galilee (which was to a great extent Greek), Decapolis, and Peraea; St Mark also mentions Idumaea. Thus there were Jews, Greeks, Phoenicians, and Arabs among our Lord’s hearers.
Verse 18
18. ἀπὸ πνευμάτων. The ἀπὸ indicates the sources of their maladies. See Winer, p. 464
Verse 19
19. ἅπτεσθαι αὐτοῦ. Compare Luke 8:44; Matthew 14:36; Mark 5:30.
Verse 20
20. μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί. ‘Blessed are the poor.’ The μακάριοι is a Hebrew expression (ashrê), (Psalms 1:1). St Matthew adds “in spirit” (comp. Isaiah 66:2, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word”). But [1] St Luke gives the address of Christ to the poor, whose very presence shewed that they were His poor and had come to seek Him; and [2] the Evangelist seems to have been impressed with the blessings of a faithful and humble poverty in itself (comp. James 2:5; 1 Corinthians 1:26-29), and loves to record those parts of our Lord’s teaching which were especially ‘the Gospel to the poor’ (see Luke 1:53, Luke 2:7, Luke 6:20, Luke 12:15-34, Luke 16:9-25). See Introd. p. xxxv.
“Come ye who find contentment’s very core
In the light store
And daisied path
Of poverty,
And know how more
A small thing that the righteous hath
Availeth, than the ungodly’s riches great.”
COV. PATMORE.
“This is indeed an admirably sweet friendly beginning … for He does not begin like Moses … with command and threatening, but in the friendliest possible way with free, enticing, alluring and amiable promises.” Luther.
ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. It must be obvious to common sense that ‘the poor,’ ‘the hungry,’ ‘the weeping,’ must be understood ethically. St Matthew uses the expression ‘the kingdom of the heavens.’ The main differences between St Matthew’s and St Luke’s record of the Sermon on the Mount are explained by the different objects and readers of these Gospels; but in both it is the Inaugural Discourse of the Kingdom of Heaven:—
(i) St Matthew writes for the Jews, and much that he records has special bearing on the Levitic Law (Luke 5:17-38), which St Luke naturally omits as less intelligible to Gentiles. Other parts here omitted are recorded by St Luke later on (Luke 11:9-13; Matthew 7:7-11).
(ii) St Matthew, presenting Christ as Lawgiver and King, gives the Sermon more in the form of a Code. Kurn Hattin is for him the new and more blessed Sinai; St Luke gives it more in the form of a direct homily (“yours,” &c., not “theirs,” Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:3; and compare Luke 6:46-47 with Matthew 7:21; Matthew 7:24).
(iii) Much of the Sermon in St Matthew is occupied with the contrast between the false righteousness—the pretentious orthodoxy and self-satisfied ceremonialism—of the Pharisees, and the true righteousness of the Kingdom which is mercy and love. Hence much of his report is occupied with Spirituality as the stamp of true religion, in opposition to formalism, while St Luke deals with Love in the abstract.
(iv) Thus in St Matthew we see mainly the Law of Love as the contrast between the new and the old; in St Luke the Law of Love as the central and fundamental idea of the new.
For a sketch of the Sermon on the Mount, mainly in St Matthew, I may refer to my Life of Christ, I. 259–264. The arrangement of the section in St Luke is not obvious. Some see in it the doctrine of happiness; the doctrine of justice; the doctrine of wisdom; or [1] the salutation of love (Luke 6:20-26); the precepts of love (27–38); the impulsion of love (39–49). These divisions are arbitrary. Godet more successfully arranges it thus: [1] The members of the new society (20–26; Matthew 5:1-12); [2] The fundamental principle of the new society (27–45; Matthew 5:13 to Matthew 7:12); [3] The judgment of God on which it rests (46–49; Matthew 7:13-27):—in other words [1] the appeal; [2] the principles; [3] the sanction.
Verses 20-26
20–26. BEATITUDES AND WOES
This section of St Luke, from Luke 6:20 to Luke 9:6, resembles in style the great Journey Section, Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:34.
Verse 21
21. μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν. Comp. Luke 1:53; Psalms 107:9. St Matthew here also brings out more clearly that it is the beatitude of spiritual hunger “after righteousness.”
χορτασθήσεσθε. This verb (from χόρτος, a farm-yard) originally, meant ‘to fatten cattle.’ It is used in the LXX[137] and by each of the Evangelists, but only once by St Paul.
γελάσετε. See 2 Corinthians 6:10; Revelation 21:4.
Verse 22
22. μισήσωσιν … ἀφορίσωσιν … ὀνειδίσωσιν … ἐκβάλωσιν. We have here four steps of persecution increasing in virulence: [1] General hatred; [2] Exclusion from the synagogue, a lesser excommunication, viz. the Nezîphah or exclusion for 30 days, or Niddouî for 90 days (Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. 183; John 9:34,—hence ἀφορισμὸς means ‘excommunication’); [3] Violent slander; [4] The Cherem, Shammatta, or greater excommunication,—permanent expulsion from the Synagogue and Temple (John 16:2). The Jews pretended that our Lord was thus excommunicated with the blast of 400 rams’ horns by Joshua Ben Perachiah (Wagenseil, Sota, p. 1057), and was only crucified forty days after because no witness came forward in His favour.
ὡς πονηρόν. ‘Malefic’ or ‘execrable superstition’ was the favourite description of Christianity among Pagans (Tac. Ann. XV. 44; Suet. Nero, 16), and Christians were charged with incendiarism, cannibalism, and every infamy. (The student will find such heathen views of Christianity collected in my Life of St Paul, Exc. XV. Vol. I.)
ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The hatred of men is not in itself a beatitude, because there is a general conscience which condemns certain forms of wickedness, and a man may justly incur universal execration. But the world also hates those who run counter to its pleasures and prejudices, and in that case hatred may be the tribute which vice pays to holiness; 1 Peter 2:19; 1 Peter 3:14. “The world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world;” John 17:14. Still a man may well tremble when he is enjoying throughout life a beatitude of benediction. And ‘the world’ by no means excludes the so-called ‘religious world,’ which has hated with a still fiercer hatred, and exposed to a yet deadlier martyrdom, some of its greatest prophets and teachers. Not a few of the great and holy men enumerated in the note on Luke 6:23 fell a victim to the fury of priests. Our Lord was handed over to crucifixion by the unanimous hatred of the highest religious authorities of His day.
On the title Son of Man, which occurs in all the four Gospels, see p. 168. In using it Christ “chooses for Himself that title which definitely presents His work in relation to humanity in itself, and not primarily in relation to God or to the chosen people, or even to humanity as fallen.” Canon Westcott (on John 1:51) considers that it was not distinctively a Messianic title, and doubts its having been derived from Daniel 7:13. “The Son of God was made a Son of Man that you who were sons of men might be made sons of God.” Aug. Serm. 121. As the “Second Adam” Christ is the representative of the race (1 Corinthians 15:45) in its highest ideal; as “the Lord from Heaven” He is the Promise of its future exaltation.
Verse 23
23. χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. See Acts 5:41. “We glory in tribulation;” Romans 5:3; James 1:2-3; Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 11:26. They accepted with joy that ‘ignominy of Christ’ which made the very name of ‘Christian’ a term of execration; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 Peter 4:16.
τοῖς προφήταις. Elijah and his contemporaries, 1 Kings 19:10. Hanani imprisoned by Asa, 2 Chronicles 16:10. Micaiah imprisoned, 1 Kings 22:27. Zechariah stoned by Joash, 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. Urijah slain by Jehoiakim, Jeremiah 26:23. Jeremiah imprisoned, smitten and put in the stocks, Jeremiah 32:38. Amos slandered, expelled, and perhaps beaten to death (Amos 7). Isaiah (according to tradition) sawn asunder, Hebrews 11:37, &c. See the same reproach against the Jews in Hebrews 11:36-38; Acts 7:52; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15.
Verse 24
24. πλὴν οὐαί. While sin lasts, there must still be Woes over against Beatitudes, as Ebal stands for ever opposite to Gerizim. In St Matthew also we find (Matthew 23) eight Woes as well as eight Beatitudes. See too Jeremiah 17:5-8, but there the “cursed” precedes the “blessed.”
ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις. The ‘woe!’ is not necessarily or wholly denunciatory; it is also the cry of compassion, and of course it only applies—not to a Chuzas or a Nicodemus or a Joseph of Arimathaea,—but to those rich who are not poor in spirit, but trust in riches (Mark 10:24), or are not rich towards God (Luke 12:21), and have not got the true riches (Luke 16:11; Amos 6:1; James 5:1). Observe the many parallels between the Epistle of St James and the Sermon on the Mount, James 1:2; James 1:4-5; James 1:9; James 1:20; James 2:13-14; James 2:17-18; James 4:4; James 4:10-11; James 5:2; James 5:10; James 5:12.
ἀπέχετε. ‘Ye have to the full,’ Philippians 4:18; comp. Luke 14:25, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst good things.”
Verse 25
25. οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι. “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread,” Ezekiel 16:49.
οὐαὶ οἱ γελῶντες νῦν. Compare Ecclesiastes 2:2; Ecclesiastes 7:6; Proverbs 14:13.
Verse 26
26. οὐαὶ. Omit unto you with א ABE, &c.
ὅταν καλῶς ὑμᾶς εἴπωσιν πάντες. “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” James 4:4. “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own,” John 15:19.
τοῖς ψενδοπροφήταις. “The prophets prophesy falsely … and my people love to have it so,” Jeremiah 5:31. The prophets of Baal and of Asherah, honoured by Jezebel, 1 Kings 18:19; 1 Kings 18:22. Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, supported by Ahab, 1 Kings 22:11. “Speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits,” Isaiah 30:10.
Verse 27
27. τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. ‘To you who (really) hear.’ Euthymius Zigabenus paraphrases it τοῖς πειθομένοις μου.
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν. This had been distinctly the spirit of the highest part of the Law and the Old Testament. Exodus 23:4, “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.” Proverbs 25:21, “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat.” Yet in many passages it had practically been said “to men of old time,” at any rate in some cases, “thou shalt hate thine enemy,” Deuteronomy 7:2; Deuteronomy 23:6; 1 Chronicles 20:3; 2 Samuel 12:31; Psalms 137:8-9, &c. On these passages the fierce fanaticism of the Pharisaic Jews, after the Exile, had so exclusively fed, that we find the Talmud ringing with precepts of the most bitter hatred against all Gentiles, and the ancients had, not unnaturally, been led to the conclusion that detestation of all but Jews was a part of the Jewish religion (“adversus omnes alios hostile odium,” Tac. Hist. Luke 6:5; Juv. Sat. XIV. 103).
καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς. See the precept beautifully enforced in Romans 12:17; Romans 12:19-21.
Verses 27-38
27–38. THE LAWS OF LOVE AND MERCY
[27–30. The manifestations of Love. 31. Its formula. 32–35. Its distinctiveness. 35–36. Its model. 37–45. Love as the principle of all judgment. Godet.]
Verse 28
28. προσεὑχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. The Greek word implies the coarsest insults, and is found in 1 Peter 3:16. St Luke alone records our Lord’s prayer for His murderers, Luke 23:34, from which St Stephen learnt his, Acts 7:60.
Verse 29
29. ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα. Literally, on the jaw—perhaps to imply coarse and brutal violence.
πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην. The general principle “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39; 1 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Peter 2:19-23) impressed for ever on the memory and conscience of mankind by a striking paradox. That it is only meant as a paradox in its literal sense is shewn by the fact that our Lord Himself, while most divinely true to its spirit, did not act on the letter of it (John 18:22-23). The remark of a good man on reading the Sermon on the Mount, “either this is not true, or we are no Christians,” need not be correct of any of us. The precepts are meant, St Augustine said, more “ad praeparationem cordis quae intus est” than “ad opus quod in aperto fit;” but still, the fewer exceptions we make the better, and the more absolutely we apply the spirit of the rules, the fewer difficulties shall we find about the letter. Erasmus remarks that the sudden change of number from the plural to the singular makes the command more emphatically individual. Our Lord enunciates the principle and abstains from laying down the limitation which His hearers in all ages are eager to make.
τὸ ἱμάτιον … τὸν χιτῶνα. The himation was the upper garment, the shawl-like abba; the chitôn was the tunic. See on Luke 3:11.
Verse 30
30. παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου. Literally, “be giving,” implying a habit, not an instant act. Here again we have a broad, general principle of unselfishness and liberality safely left to the common sense of mankind, Deuteronomy 15:7-9. The spirit of our Lord’s precept is now best fulfilled by not giving to every man that asks, because in the altered circumstances of the age such indiscriminate almsgiving would only be a check to industry, and a premium on imposture, degradation, and vice. By ‘giving,’ our Lord meant ‘conferring a boon;’ but mere careless giving now, so far from conferring a boon, perpetuates a curse and inflicts an injury. The spirit of the precept is large-handed but thoughtful charity. Love must sometimes violate the letter as the only possible way of observing the spirit (Matthew 15:26; Matthew 20:23). “Omni petenti … non omnia petenti; ut id des quod juste et honeste potes.”—Augustine. Our Lord did not mean His divine maxim to be left at the mercy of wild fanaticism or stupid letter worship.
Verse 31
31. καθὼς θέλετε κ.τ.λ. The golden rule of Christianity of which our Lord said that it was “the Law and the Prophets,” Matthew 7:12. The modern ‘Altruism’ and ‘vivre pour autrui,’ though pompously enunciated as the basis of a new religion, are but a mutilated reproduction of this.
ἵνα ποιῶσιν. Another instance of the loose Hellenistic expansion of the use of ἵνα.
Verse 32
32. καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί. Where St Matthew (Matthew 5:46-47), writing for Jews, uses the term ‘tax-gatherers’ or ‘Gentile persons’ (ἐθνικοὶ), St Luke naturally substitutes the nearest equivalents of those words in this connexion, because he is writing for Gentiles. Our Lord meant that our standard must rise above the ordinary dead level of law, habit, custom, which prevail in the world.
Verse 33
33. καὶ AD. καὶ γάρ א B.
Verse 34
34. τὰ ἴσα. ‘The exact return.’
Verse 35
35. πλήν. ‘However.’ This conjunction is used by St Luke much more frequently than by the other N. T. writers. From this passage we see that ‘interest’ and ‘usury’ are not here contemplated at all.
μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες. Vulg[138] nihil inde sperantes. See Psalms 15:5, with the Rabbinic comment that God counts it as universal obedience if any one lends without interest. The words may also mean ‘despairing in nothing;’ or (if μηδέν' be read) ‘driving no one to despair.’ The verb only occurs again as the varia lectio of D in Ephesians 4:19. It is a late Greek word and generally means ‘to despair.’ Hence our R. V[139] renders it “never despairing” with the marginal reading “despairing of no man” (μηδέν'). Comp. Romans 4:18, παρ' ἐλπίδα ἐπ' ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν.
ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου. Comp. Sirach 4:10.
χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς. See the exquisite addition in Matthew 5:45.
Verse 36
36. γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες. ‘Become,’ or ‘Prove yourselves merciful’ (omit οὖν, א BDL).
οἰκτίρμων. St Matthew has “perfect,” Matthew 5:48; but that there is no essential difference between the two Evangelists we may see in such expressions as “the Father of Mercies,” 2 Corinthians 1:3; “the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy,” James 5:11; “Put on therefore as the elect of God … bowels of mercies, kindness,” Colossians 3:12; Isaiah 30:18. “God can only be our ideal in His moral attributes, of which Love is the centre.” Van Oosterzee.
“It is an attribute to God Himself,
And earthly power doth then shew likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”
SHAKSPEARE.
Verse 37
37. μὴ κρίνετε. The following καταδικάζετε shews that what is forbidden is not only condemnatory judgment but the critical, fastidious, fault-finding, ungenerous spirit. For comment read Romans 2:1-3; Romans 14:10, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?… for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;” 1 Corinthians 4:3-5; 1 Corinthians 4:13, and the Lord’s Prayer; James 2:13, “he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shewed no mercy.” Hence a “righteous judgment” of others is not forbidden, so long as it be made in a forbearing and tender spirit, John 7:24.
ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε. The words should be rendered, ‘Set free and ye shall be set free.’ Comp. Luke 22:68. Vulg[140] dimittite et dimittemini. The verb ἀπολύω in the N. T. never means ‘to forgive.’ For comment see the Parable of the Debtors, Matthew 18:23-35.
Verse 38
38. δώσουσιν. ‘Shall they give.’ Who? The A.V[141] supplies “men.” Euthymius says ‘those whom you have benefited’ for God will seem to give in their behalf. But St Luke was probably thinking of angels, as in Luke 16:9 (comp. Matthew 24:31) and in Luke 12:20; Luke 12:48.
εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν. Pockets were unknown to the ancients. All that was necessary was carried in the fold of the robe (Heb. cheyk, Psalms 35:13, &c.; Lat. sinus), or in the girdle.
ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε. A proverb almost verbally identical with this is found in the Talmud (Duke’s Rabbin. Blumenlese, p. 162), but it must be remembered that the earliest parts of the Talmud were not committed to writing till more than two centuries after Christ; and long before that time His sayings may have been ‘in the air,’ i.e. they may have passed unconsciously into the store of the national wisdom even among His enemies.
Verse 39
39. μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; Matthew 15:14. Proverbs 19:27, “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err.” St Paul taunts the Jew with professing to be “a guide of the blind,” Romans 2:19. St Luke calls this “a parable” in the broader sense (see on Luke 4:23); and in this Gospel the Sermon thus ends with four vivid ‘parables’ or similes taken from the sights of daily life—blind leaders of blind; the mote and the beam; good and bad fruit; the two houses. The emphasis is increased by the sharp opposition of the contiguous nominative and accusative.
Verses 39-45
39–45. SINCERITY. FOUR COMPARISONS
Verse 40
40. κατηρτισμένος. ‘Who has been perfected,’ 2 Timothy 3:17. A favourite quotation of St John’s, Luke 13:16, Luke 15:20. See Matthew 10:25.
Verse 41
41. βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος. The hypocrite sees (βλέπει) at the slightest glance the mote in his brother’s eye; but not the most careful inspection enables him to observe (κατανοεῖν) the very obvious beam in his own eye. κάρφος, a stalk or chip, and this is also the idea of mote. Thus in Dutch mot is dust of wood; in Spanish mota is a flue on cloth.
τὴν δοκόν. The entire illustration is Jewish, and was used to express impatience of just reproof (Babha Bathra, f. 15. 2) so that ‘mote’ and ‘beam’ became proverbial for little and great faults. The proverb also implies, ‘How can you see others’ faults properly with a beam in the depth of your eye (ἔκβαλε … ἐκ, Matthew 7:5)? how dare you condemn when you are so much worse?’ Comp. Chaucer (Reeve’s Prologue),
“He can wel in myn eye see a stalke
But in his owne he can nought seen a balke.”
Verse 42
42. ἅφες ἐκβάλω. Cp. Mark 15:36, ἄφετε ἴδωμεν. The conjunction is deliberative, as in θέλεις εἴπωμεν, Luke 9:54. In modern Greek ἂς, let, is derived from ἄφες, and has become a regular imperative form.
οὐ βλέπων. This is the only instance of οὐ with a participle in this Gospel. Participles are so frequently causal or conditional that they are usually reversed by the subjective negative μή,—the particle which negatives thoughts—which is exclusively joined to them in modern Greek. The οὐ is here emphatic—‘when, as a fact, thou art blind to.’
ὑποκριτά. Romans 2:1, “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.” “If we condemn others when we are worse than they, we are like bad trees pretending to bear good fruit.” Bengel.
Verse 44
44. ἕκαστον δένδρον. ‘Each tree’ (not as in A.V[142] every tree, which would be πᾶν δένδρον).
οὐ … συλλέγουσιν σῦκα. The simile might have been illustrated by pointing to one of the common Eastern gardens or orchards with its festooning vines and fig-trees just beyond the rough hedges of prickly pear.
Verse 45
45. ἐκ γὰρ περισσεύματος καρδίας λαλεῖ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ. “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?” Matthew 12:34; “the vile person will speak villany,” Isaiah 32:6.
Verse 46
46. τί δέ με καλεῖτε, Κύριε, κύριε; “If I be a master, where is my fear, saith the Lord of Hosts?” Malachi 1:6. Painful comments are supplied by the language of two parables, Matthew 25:11-12; Luke 13:25.
Verses 46-49
46–49. FALSE AND TRUE FOUNDATIONS
Verse 47
47. καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς. John 13:17. “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,” James 1:22.
Verse 48
48. ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν, καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. The E.V. here loses all the picturesque force of the original. Render, ‘he is like a man building a house, who dug, and kept deepening, and laid a foundation on the rock.’ The two first verbs are not a mere Hebraism or hendiadys for ‘he dug deep’ (Vulg[143] fodit in altum) as Schott says; but they give a picture, somewhat in the leisurely Hebrew manner. See Winer, p. 588. ‘Crescit oratio.’ Beza. The rock is Christ and the teaching of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Whether tested by flood, or by fire (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), only the genuine building stands. In another sense, too, ‘the wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand,’ Proverbs 12:7.
πλημμύρης. ‘An inundation;’ the sudden rush of a spait.
διὰ τὸ καλῶς κ.τ.λ. See critical note.
Verse 49
49. ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. In St Matthew, more graphically, “upon the sand;” e.g. the sand of superficial intellectual acceptance.
συνέπεσεν. ‘It collapsed,’ ‘it fell in a heap.’
τὸ ῥῆγμα. Literally, ‘the breach.’
07 Chapter 7
Verse 1
1. ἐπειδή. Where. This is the best reading. Luke 11:6 is the only place where it occurs (undisputedly) in the Gospels. Elsewhere it is only used once or twice in the Acts and by St Paul.
ἐπλήρωσεν. ‘Quum absolvisset.’ The words shew the solemnity attached to the previous discourse.
εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς. Mark 7:35; Acts 17:20. See Matthew 8:5-13. Capernaum was now His temporary home. The incident occurred as He was entering the town.
Verses 1-10
1–10. HEALING OF THE CENTURION’S SERVANT
Verse 2
2. ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος. Literally ‘slave.’ The word used by St Matthew (παῖς) might mean son, but is clearly also used for servant (like the Latin puer). A centurion is a captain; under him is a sergeant (δεκάδαρχος), and above him a colonel (χιλίαρχος), and general (ἡγεμών). Jos. B. J. Luke 7:12, § 2. All the centurions in the N.T. are favourably mentioned (Luke 23:47; Acts 27:43).
ἔντιμος. ‘Precious.’ 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:6. The love of the captain for his servant was a good example for the Jews themselves, who in the Talmud forbade mourning for slaves.
κακῶς ἔχων. St Matthew says, ‘stricken with paralysis, and in terrible pain’ (Luke 8:6). St Luke, as a physician, may have omitted this specification because the description applies rather to tetanus than to “paralysis.”
ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν. ‘Was on the point of death.’
Verse 3
3. ἀκούσας περὶ Ἰησοῦ. ‘Having heard about Jesus.’
πρεσβυτέρους. ‘Elders’ (Zekânim), with no article. These ‘elders’ were doubtless some of the ten functionaries, whom the Jews also called parnasim, ‘shepherds.’ Their functions were not in any respect sacerdotal, and they were of lower rank than the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι.
διασώσῃ. ‘Would save from death’ (not heal as in A.V[156]).
Verse 4
4. σπουδαίως. ‘Instantly,’ i.e. urgently, as in the phrase “continuing instant in prayer.”
παρέξῃ. See critical note. As the παρέξει of the Rec[157] can only be a 3rd pers. singular, it would thus represent the remarks of the elders among themselves. Meyer.
Verse 5
5. ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν. A most unusual thing for a Gentile to do. It shews that the centurion was a Gentile,—probably a proselyte of the gate (though the term was invented later), i.e. one of those who embraced Judaism on the whole, but without becoming a ‘proselyte of righteousness’ by accepting circumcision. It is not impossible that he may have been a Roman, though there is no direct proof that Romans ever held such offices under Herod Antipas. More probably he was some Greek or Syrian, holding a commission under the tetrarch.
τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. ‘Our synagogue he himself built for us.’ The expression, ‘the synagogue,’ does not necessarily imply that there was only one synagogue in Capernaum, but only that he had built the one from which this deputation came, which was probably the chief synagogue of Capernaum. If Capernaum be Tel Hum (as I became convinced on the spot itself), then the ruins of it shew that it probably possessed two synagogues; and this we should have conjectured beforehand, seeing that Jerusalem is said to have had 400. The walls of one of these, built of white marble, are of the age of the Herods, and stand just above the lake. It may be the very building here referred to. This liberality on the part of the Gentiles was by no means unfrequent. Wealthy Gentile proselytes not seldom sent splendid gifts to the Temple itself. The Ptolemies, Jos. Antt. XII. 2, § 5; Sosius, id. XIV. 16, § 4; Fulvia, id. XVIII. 3, § 5, &c. See on Luke 21:5. The αὐτὸς means that the munificent centurion, who must have been very wealthy, had built the synagogue at his own expense.
Verse 6
6. ἔπεμψεν … φίλους. These ‘friends’ were perhaps brother-officers, not Jews. Here the narrative of St Luke is much more detailed, and therefore probably more exact, than that of St Matthew, who represents the conversation as taking place between our Lord and the centurion himself. we see from St Luke that he had been prevented from coming in person by deep humility, and the belief that the elders would be more likely to win the boon for him. Meanwhile, he probably stayed by the bedside of his dying slave. St Matthew’s narrative is framed on the simple and common principle, qui facit per alium facit per se.
κύριε. The word in itself may mean no more than ‘Sir,’ as in John 4:19; John 12:21; Acts 16:30, &c. It was, in fact, like the Latin dominus, an ordinary mode of address to persons whose names were unknown (Sen. Ephesians 3); but the centurion’s entire conduct shews that on his lips the word had a more exalted significance. In a special sense Κύριος is a name for God (Adonai) and Jehovah (1 Thessalonians 5:2, &c.).
μὴ σκύλλου. ‘Bother not,’ or ‘worry not thyself.’ But in Hellenistic Greek, both slang words (ὑπωπιάζω, Luke 18:5; καταναρκάω, 2 Corinthians 12:13) and purely poetic words (see Luke 2:35) had become current in ordinary senses. Σκύλλω only occurs as a var. lect. (‘worried sheep’) in Matthew 9:36, in Luke 8:49, and in the parallel (Mark 5:35). Its first meaning is to flay.
ἱκανός. Lit. sufficient.
ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου. “I am not worthy”—Dicendo se indignum praestitit dignum non in cujus parietes sed in cujus cor Christus intraret. Aug.
ἐμαυτόν. ‘I did not even think myself worthy to come; I sent my friends to represent me.’
Verse 7
7. εἰπὲ λόγῳ. The centurion had clearly heard how Jesus, by His mere fiat, had healed the son of the ‘courtier’ at Capernaum (John 4:46-54). The attempt to make these two miracles identical is most arbitrary and untenable.
ὁ παῖς μου. The centurion here uses the more tender word, παῖς, ‘son.’
ἰαθήτω. ‘Let him be healed.’ The faith of the centurion was “an invisible highway for the saving eagles of the great Imperator.” Lange.
Verse 8
8. καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ. ‘For indeed I.’ This assigns the reason why he made the request. He was but a subordinate himself, “under authority” of his chiliarch and other officers, and yet he had soldiers under him as well as a servant, who at a word executed his orders. He inferred that Jesus, who had the power of healing at a distance, had at His command thousands of the “Heavenly Army” (Luke 2:13; Matthew 26:53) who would
“at His bidding speed,
And post o’er land and ocean without rest.”
ἄνθρωπος. ‘A person.’ The humility of this centurion is very remarkable in a Gentile officer. He does not even call himself ἀνήρ. Ὑπὸ ἐξουσίας τασσόμενος means literally ‘who is being ranked under authority.’ The centurion was under the tribunus militum (χιλίαρχος, Acts 21:32). The present τασσόμενος (which is not to be taken with εἰμί, but is a separate epithet) represents the constant, daily submission to duty, and is far more graphic than τεταγμένος would have been. That would have expressed the permanent position.
Verse 9
9. ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν. The only other place where the astonishment of Jesus is recorded mentions His astonishment at unbelief. Mark 6:6.
οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὖρον. ‘Not even in Israel found I so great faith.’ These words are preserved with similar exactness in St Matthew. “He had found,” says St Augustine, “in the oleaster what He had not found in the olive.” Nothing can be more clear than that neither Evangelist had seen the narrative of the other, and, since St Matthew is the less exact, we infer that both Evangelists in this instance drew from some cycle of oral or written apostolic teaching. The words added by St Matthew (Matthew 8:11-12) are given by St Luke in another connexion (Luke 13:28 sq.).
Verse 10
10. ὑγιαίνοντα. A medical word which is found also in Luke 15:27 (and in a metaphorical sense in Titus 1:13; 1 Timothy 1:10; 1 Timothy 6:3; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2 Timothy 4:3).
ἀσθενοῦντα. This word should probably be omitted. It has a certain picturesqueness, for it implies that the friends of the centurion found the slave sound whom they regarded as sick. On the one hand, it may be regarded as an explanatory gloss; on the other hand, it may have been omitted as involving a contradiction.
Verse 11
11. ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς. If the reading τῇ be right we must understand ἡμέρᾳ, ‘day.’ Some MSS. (ABL, &c.) read τῷ, which would give a wider limit of time. In Luke 8:1 we have ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς, and it must be admitted that if ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς be the right reading it is unique. For in Luke 9:37, ἡμέρᾳ is supplied; and in Acts 21:1; Acts 25:17; Acts 27:18, ἐν is omitted. There is no chronological difficulty about the event taking place the ‘next day,’ as I have shewn in my Life of Christ, I. 285. St Luke alone, with his characteristic tenderness, preserves for us this narrative.
εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Ναΐν. In the tribe of Issachar. The name means ‘lovely,’ and it deserves the name from its site on the northwest slope of Jebel el Duhy, or Little Hermon, not far from Endor, and full in view of Tabor and the hills of Zebulon. It is twenty-five miles from Capernaum, and our Lord, starting in the cool of the very early morning, as Orientals always do, would reach it before noon. It is now a squalid and wretched village, still bearing the name of Nein.
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἱκανοὶ καὶ ὄχλος πολύς. ‘There were accompanying Him His disciples, in considerable numbers, and a large multitude.’ In this first year of His ministry, before the deadly opposition to Him had gathered head, while as yet the Pharisees and leaders had not come to an open rupture with Him, and He had not sifted His followers by ‘hard sayings,’ our Lord was usually accompanied by adoring crowds.
Verses 11-17
11–17. THE RAISING OF THE SON OF THE WIDOW OF NAIN
Verse 12
12. ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ. All ordinary Jewish funerals are extramural. Nain is approached by a narrow rocky path, and it must have been at this spot that the two processions met. They were perhaps going to bury the dead youth in one of the rock-hewn sepulchres which are still visible on the hill side. The rocky path is one of the few definite spots in Palestine on which we know that our Lord had stood.
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο. For the use of καὶ compare Luke 2:21. The uses of καὶ in the Gospels are modified by Aramaic idioms. Ἐκκομίζειν is used for the classical ἐκφέρειν, efferre.
μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρί. The dative is here expressive of more tender feeling than the ordinary genitive would have been. It is the dative of advantage, and expresses the preciousness of the son to the mother. Comp. μονογενὴς τῷ πατρί, Tobit 3:15. See Winer, p. 264. It is found also in classic Greek—μονογενὲς τέκνον πατρί, Aesch. Ag. 872. ἐόντα οἱ μουνογενέα, Hdt. VII. 221. See on Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38.
ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανός. Compare the public sympathy for the family of Bethany (John 11:19); and on the bitterness of mourning for an only child, see Jeremiah 6:26; Zechariah 12:10; Amos 8:10.
Verse 13
13. ὁ κύριος. “The Lord” is far more frequent as a title of Jesus in St Luke (Luke 10:1, Luke 11:39, Luke 12:42, Luke 17:5-6, Luke 19:8, Luke 22:61) than in the other Evangelists except St John. The fact is a sign of the spread of Christian faith. Even though St Luke’s Gospel may not have been published more than a year or two after St Matthew’s, yet St Luke belongs, so to speak, to a later generation of disciples.
ἐσπλαγχνίσθη. Jesus, who was always touched by the sight of human agony (Mark 7:34; Mark 8:12), seems to have felt a peculiar compassion for the anguish of bereavement (John 11:33-37). The fact that this youth was “the only son of his mother, and she a widow” would convey to Jewish notions a deeper sorrow than it even does to ours, for they regarded childlessness as a special calamity, and the loss of offspring as a direct punishment for sin (Jeremiah 6:26; Zechariah 12:10; Amos 8:10).
μὴ κλαῖε. ‘Be not weeping,’ i.e. ‘dry thy tears.’ The consolation, as Bengel says, involved the promise of the miracle. The hypothesis that this was a case of suspended animation might have served to explain a single instance. It becomes utterly absurd when applied to five or six similar miracles in the New Testament. The only choice lies between belief in a fact and repudiation of a deliberately invented falsehood. Comp. Luke 7:22; Matthew 11:5.
Verse 14
14. τῆς σόρου. ‘The coffin.’ Here again, as in the case of the leper (Luke 5:12), our Lord sacrificed the mere Levitical ceremonialism, with its rules about uncleanness, to a higher law. Jewish coffins were open, so that the form of the dead was visible.
σοὶ λέγω. ‘To thee (dead though thou art) I say.’
ἐγέρθητι. Probably the single monosyllable Kûm! Compare Luke 8:54; John 11:43; Acts 9:40. How unlike the passionate tentative struggles of Elijah (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:35)!
Verse 15
15. ἔδωκεν. ‘He gave him.’ It was a gift from the grave. The A. V[158] (delivered) misses the force of this tender word.
Verse 16
16. προφήτης μέγας. The expectation of the return of Elijah, Jeremiah, or “one of the Prophets” was at that time widely spread. See on Luke 9:8; Luke 9:19.
ἐπεσκέψατο. Compare Luke 1:68; Luke 1:78; John 3:2.
Verse 17
17. ὁ λόγος οὗτος. This account or story, rather than rumour.
ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ. The notion that St Luke supposed Nain to be in Judaea is quite groundless. He means that the story of the incident at Nain spread even into Judaea.
Verses 18-35
18–35. THE MESSAGE FROM THE BAPTIST
Verse 19
19. ὁ Ἰωάννης. The Baptist was now in prison (Matthew 11:2-6), but was not precluded from intercourse with his friends.
πρὸς τὸν κύριον. The reading of B and some other uncials. St Luke and St John use this title frequently to describe Jesus. The other two Synoptists do not; perhaps because to Jewish ears ὁ Κύριος was the recognised synonym of Jehovah.
σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἂλλον προσδοκῶμεν; ‘Art thou the coming [Messiah], or are we to expect another?’ “The Coming (One)” is a technical Hebrew term for the Messiah (Habba). The title occurs in Luke 13:35, Luke 19:38; John 1:15; John 3:31; Revelation 1:8, and is derived from Malachi 3:1. This brief, remarkable message is identical with that in St Matthew, except that St Luke uses ἄλλον (‘another’), and St Matthew ἔτερον (‘a second,’ or ‘different one’). Probably, however, there is no significance in this variation, since the accurate classical meaning of ἔτερος was partly obliterated. Probably too the messengers spoke in Aramaic. “The Coming” is clearer in St Matthew, because he has just told us that John heard in prison the works of “the Christ,” i.e. of the Messiah. Those who are shocked with the notion that the faith of the Baptist should even for a moment have wavered, suppose that [1] St John merely meant to suggest that surely the time had now come for the Messiah to reveal himself as the Messiah, and that his question was one rather of ‘increasing impatience’ than of ‘secret unbelief;’ or [2] that the message was sent solely to reassure John’s own disciples; or [3] that, as St Matthew here uses the phrase ‘the works of the Messiah’ and not “of Jesus,” the Baptist only meant to ask ‘Art thou the same person as the Jesus to whom I bore testimony?’ These suppositions are excluded, not only by the tenor of the narrative but directly by Luke 7:23 (Matthew 11:6). Scripture never presents the saints as ideally faultless, and therefore with holy truthfulness never conceals any sign of their imperfection or weakness. Nothing is more natural than that the Great Baptist—to whom had been granted but a partial revelation—should have felt deep anguish at the calm and noiseless advance of a Kingdom for which, in his theocratic and Messianic hopes, he had imagined a very different proclamation. Doubtless too his faith like that of Elijah (1 Kings 19:4), of Job in his trials (Job 3:1), and of Jeremiah in prison (Jeremiah 20:7), might be for a moment drowned by the tragic briefness, and disastrous eclipse of his own career; and he might hope to alleviate by this message the anguish which he felt when he contrasted the joyous brightness of our Lord’s Galilean ministry with the unalleviated gloom of his own fortress-prison among the black rocks at Makor. ‘If Jesus be indeed the promised Messiah,’ he may have thought, ‘why am I, His Forerunner, suffered to languish undelivered,—the victim of a wicked tyrant?’ The Baptist was but one of those many glorious saints whose careers God, in His mysterious Providence, has suffered to end in disaster and eclipse that He may shew us how small is the importance which we must attach to the judgment of men, or the rewards of earth. “We fools accounted his life madness, and his end to be without honour: how is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot is among the saints!” Wisdom of Solomon 5:20. We may be quite sure that “in the fiery furnace God walked with His servant so that his spirit was not harmed, and having thus annealed his nature to the utmost that this earth can do, He took him hastily away and placed him among the glorified in Heaven.” Irving.
Verse 20
20. ὁ βαπτιστής. ‘The Baptist.’
Verse 21
21. μαστίγων. ‘Scourges.’ It is used here only by St Luke of diseases, and elsewhere only by St Mark (Mark 3:10; Mark 5:29; Mark 5:34).
καὶ τυφλοῖς πολλοῖς ἐχαρίσατο βλέπειν. ‘And to many blind He granted the boon of seeing. The καὶ indicates the greatness of the miracle, and the ἐχαρίσατο (which Bengel calls magnificum verbum) the graciousness of it, and the preciousness of the result. The Rec[159] reads τὸ βλέπειν, but the τὸ is not essential and probably rose from homoeoteleuton. χαρίζεσθαι in the N. T. is only used by St Luke and St Paul.
Verse 22
22. ἃ εἴδετε. Our Lord wished His answer to be the announcement of facts, not the explanation of difficulties. His enumeration of the miracles involves an obvious reference to Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:4-6; Isaiah 60:1-3 (see Luke 4:17-19), which would be instantly caught by one so familiar with the language of “the Evangelical Prophet” as the Baptist had shewn himself to be.
πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται. With this construction compare πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Galatians 2:7. When a verb governing the dative is used in the passive, the noun denoting the person becomes the nominative. See Winer, p. 326. Thus the spiritual miracle is placed as the most convincing climax. The arrogant ignorance and hard theology of the Rabbis treated all the poor as mere peasants and nobodies. The Talmud is full of the two contemptuous names applied to them—‘people of the earth’ and ‘laics.’ One of the charges brought against the Pharisees by our Lord was their attempt to secure the monopoly of knowledge, Luke 11:52.
ὃς ἐὰν for ὅστις ἄν. In late writers and in Hellenistic Greek ἐὰν is used in exactly the same sense as ἂν after relative pronouns and conjunctions. The peculiarity may have been derived from popular usage.
Verse 23
23. σκανδαλισθῇ. ‘Caused to stumble.’ For instances of the stumbling-block which some made for themselves of incidents in our Lord’s career, see Matthew 13:55-57; Matthew 22:42; John 6:60; John 6:66; and compare Isaiah 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:7-8. The word σκάνδαλον (Latin, offendiculum, Hebr. mokesh, ‘snare,’ and mikshol, ‘stumbling-block’) means anything over which a person falls (e.g. a stone in the road) or on which he treads and is thrown.
Verse 24
24. ἀπελθόντων. We notice here the exquisite tenderness of our Lord. He would not suffer the multitudes who had heard the question of John to cherish one depreciatory thought of the Baptist; and yet he suffers the messengers to depart, lest, while hearing the grand eulogy of their Master, they should be pained by His concluding words. It is natural to suppose that the two disciples carried back to John some private message of peace and consolation.
ἤρξατο. The word introduces solemn and important remarks, as in Luke 4:21. The word is specially common in St Mark and St Luke; less so in St Matthew; St John does not use it in this phrase at all.
θεάσασθαι, ‘to gaze upon.’
κάλαμον. John was not like the reeds which they had seen waving in the wind on the banks of Jordan, but rather, as Lange says, ‘a cedar half uprooted by the storm.’
Verse 25
25. ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον. A contrast to the camel’s hair mantle and leathern girdle of the Baptist; Matthew 3:4.
οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ. St Luke’s classical dislike to repetition makes him substitute ἱμ. ἐνδ. for ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις (Matthew 11:8). ‘They are in glorious apparel and luxury.’ The Herods were specially given both to ostentation in dress (Acts 13:21) and to luxury, Mark 6:21; Jos. B. J. I. 20, § 2; Antt. XIX. 8, § 2; 18, § 7. τρυφῇ occurs in the N.T. only here and in 2 Peter 2:13.
ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις. ‘In the palaces.’ Such as the palaces of the Herods which His hearers had seen at Tiberias, Caesarea Philippi, and Jerusalem. We might almost fancy an allusion to Manaen the Essene, who is said in the Talmud to have openly adopted gorgeous robes to shew his allegiance to Herod. To the Herodians generally, and to all whose Judaism was a mere matter of gain and court favour, might have been applied the sneering nickname of the Talmud ‘Proselytes of the royal table’ (Gere Shulchan Melachim. Kiddushin, f. 65. 2; Grätz, III. 308), which may be compared with the sneering Hindoo phrase “rice-Christians.” John had been in palaces, but only to counsel and reprove. Our Lord on the only two occasions on which He entered palaces—on the last day of His life—was mocked by being robed in “bright apparel” (Luke 23:11), and a purple or scarlet robe (Matthew 27:28).
Verse 26
26. προφήτην. “All accounted John as a prophet,” Matthew 21:26.
περισσότερον προφήτου. Namely, an actual personal herald and forerunner; the Angel or Messenger of Malachi, Luke 3:1, and so the only Prophet who had himself been announced by Prophecy. περισσότερον = πλέον.
Verse 27
27. ἰδού, ἀποστέλλω κ.τ.λ. Compare Luke 1:76; Mark 1:2. In the parallel passage of St Matthew our Lord adds that the Baptist is the promised Elias, Matthew 11:11; Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:10-13; Luke 1:17 (Malachi 4:5). The quotation is from Malachi 3:1, “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me.” The words are varied because, in the original, God is speaking in His own person, and here the words are applied to Christ.
Verse 28
28. μείζων. ‘He was the lamp, kindled and burning,’ John 5:35. “Major Prophetâ quia finis Prophetarum,” S. Ambr. He closed the former Aeon and announced the new, Matthew 11:11-12. Our Lord is alluding to his office not to his moral greatness.
ὁ δὲ μικρότερος. This cannot mean quite the same thing as if the superlative had been used. It may be qualitative, as in our R.V[160] “he that is but little.” Meyer supposes it to mean ‘he that is less than John.’ We find a similar comparative in Luke 9:48 and in Matthew 13:32; Matthew 18:1. The superlative of μικρός is not used in the N.T.
μείζων αὐτοῦ. See by way of comment Matthew 13:16-17; Colossians 1:25-27, and compare Hebrews 11:13. The simple meaning of these words seems to be that in blessings and privileges, in knowledge, in revealed hope, in conscious admission into fellowship with God, the humblest child of the new kingdom is superior to the greatest prophet of the old; seeing that, as the old legal maxim says, “the least of the greatest is greater than the greatest of the least.” The smallest diamond is made of more precious substance than the largest flint. In the old dispensation “the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” John 7:39. Of those “born of women” there was no greater prophet than John the Baptist, but the members of Christ’s Church are “born of water and of the Spirit.” This saying of our Lord respecting the privileges of the humblest children of His kingdom has seemed so strange that attempts have been made to give another tone to the meaning by interpreting “he that is least” to mean ‘the younger,’ and by explaining it to mean our Lord Himself as “coming after” the Baptist.
Verse 29
29. ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν. They bore witness that God was just; see Luke 7:35. Comp. Psalms 51:4, “that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest, and be clear when Thou art judged,” and Romans 3:26. St Luke has already made prominent mention of the publicans at the baptism of John, Luke 3:12.
Verse 30
30. ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς. ‘Nullified (Galatians 2:21; Proverbs 1:24) the purpose of God, to their own ruin,’ or better, ‘with reference to themselves.’ The “purpose of God” (Acts 20:27) had been their salvation (1 Timothy 2:4). They could not nullify this purpose towards others, but they did so as far as it referred to themselves. Had the meaning been they rejected it ‘to the best of their own power’ we should have τὸ εἰς ἑαυτούς.
μὴ βαπτισθέντες. They seem to have gone to the ministry of John partly out of curiosity, partly as spies (Matthew 3:7); and they consistently refused to recognize him as a Prophet, although they were prevented from shewing open hostility by fear of the people (Mark 11:32).
Verse 31
31. [εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος]. These words are almost certainly spurious, being omitted by all the best uncials.
τίνι οὖν ὁμοιώσω …; Our Lord seems more than once to have used this formula to arrest attention for His parables. Mark 4:30.
Verse 32
32. παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ. Lit. ‘little boys, those in the marketplace.’ Our Lord constantly drew His deepest instruction from the commonest phenomena of nature, and the everyday incidents of life. Such a method gave far greater force to the delivery of His Gospel “to the poor,” and it was wholly unlike the arid, scholastic, technical, and second-hand methods of the Rabbis.
προσφωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. This interesting comparison was doubtless drawn from the games which Jesus had witnessed, and in which perhaps He as a child had taken part, in Nazareth. Eastern children are fond of playing in groups at games of a very simple kind in the open air. Some have supposed that the game here alluded to was a sort of guessing game like that sometimes played by English children, and called ‘Dumb Show.’ This is not very probable. The point of the comparison is the peevish sullenness of the group of children who refuse to take part in, or approve of, any game played by their fellows, whether it be the merry acting of a marriage, or the imitated sadness of a funeral. So the men of that generation condemned the Baptist for his asceticism which they attributed to demoniacal possession; and condemned Christ for His genial tenderness by calling Him a man fond of good living. The difficulties and differences of explanation found in this simple parable are only due to a needless literalism. If indeed we take the language quite literally, “this generation” is compared with the dancing and mourning children who complain of the sullenness of their fellows; and if this be insisted on, the meaning must be that the Jews complained of John for holding aloof from their mirth, and of Jesus for discountenancing their austerities. But it is the children who are looking on who are blamed, not the playing children, as is clearly shewn by the “and ye say” of Luke 7:33-34. In the explanation here preferred our Lord and the Baptist are included in this generation, and the comparison (just as in the Homeric similes) is taken as a whole to illustrate the mutual relations between them and their contemporaries. So in Matthew 13:24, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a sower, &c.,” where the comparison is more to the reception of the seed.
Verse 33
33. ἐλήλυθεν. ‘Is come,’ not “came” as in the A.V[161], which would require ἦλθεν.
μήτε ἐσθίων ἄρτον κ.τ.λ. The subjective negative μήτε is used (not οὔτε) to indicate the thoughts suggested in the minds of the observers, and not the mere fact. See note on Luke 4:35. Winer, p. 607. “His meat was locusts and wild honey,” Matthew 3:4. Being a Nazarite he drank no wine, Luke 1:15; see 2 Esdras 9:24.
δαιμόνιον ἔχει. They sneered at him for a moody or melancholy temperament, which they attributed to an evil spirit. This in fact was their coarse way of describing any peculiarity or exaltation which struck them as strange. At a later period they said the same of Christ, John 7:20; John 10:20.
Verse 34
34. ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων. The title explains the reason of our Lord’s practice. He came as the Son of man, and therefore He came to shew that the common life of all men could be lived with perfect holiness, and that seclusion and asceticism were not necessary as universal conditions.
φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης. ‘An eater, and a drinker of wine.’ φάγος does not occur in the LXX[162] or N.T.; οἰνοπότης only in Proverbs 23:20.
φίλος τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. Thus His divinest mercy was turned into His worst reproach.
Verse 35
35. καί. ‘And yet.’ καὶ is often thus emphatic.
ἡ σοφία. The personification of God’s wisdom was common in the later Jewish literature, as in the Book of Wisdom. It is also found in the Old Testament (Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 1:9, &c.).
ἐδικαιώθη ἀπό. ‘Is justified’ (the aorist being gnomic), or ‘was justified by,’ or ‘on the part of,’ i.e. has from the first been acquitted of all wrong and error, receives the witness of being just, at the hands of all her children. The “children of wisdom” generally (Proverbs 2:1; Proverbs 3:1, &c.) are those who obey God, and here are those of that generation who accepted the baptism of John and the ministry of Jesus, without making a stumbling-block of their different methods. The Jews, like the petulant children, refuse to sympathize either with John or Jesus—the one they condemned for exaggerated strictness, the other for dangerous laxity: yet the Wise,—Wisdom’s true children—once for all declare that she is righteous, and free from blame: for they know that wisdom is πολυποίκιλος, ‘richly-variegated,’ ‘of many colours,’ Ephesians 3:10. The world’s wisdom was foolishness; those whom the world called fools were divinely wise, John 3:33. Wisdom is thus justified by her children both actively and passively; they declare her to be just and holy, and the world ultimately sees that her guidance as exemplified by their lives is the best guidance (Wisdom of Solomon 5:4-5; Psalms 51:4; Romans 3:4). The reading ἔργων ‘works’ for τέκνων “children” in א may be derived from the variant reading in Matthew 11:19.
πάντων. The position adds emphasis to the word—‘by her children—all of them,’ even publicans and sinners, who embraced truth when it reached them, whether from John or from the Lord, and “justified (ἐδικαίωσαν) God.” Hence the following narrative is, as Godet points out, a special illustration of the general principle.
Verse 36
36. τις … τῶν φαρισαίων. This exquisite narrative is peculiar to St Luke, and well illustrates that conception of the universality and free gift of grace which predominates in his Gospel as in St Paul. To identify this Simon with Simon the Leper in Mark 14:3 is quite arbitrary. Simon was one of the commonest Jewish names. There were two Simons among the Twelve, and there are nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament alone, and twenty in Josephus. There must therefore have been thousands of Simons in Palestine, where names were few. The incident itself was one which might have happened frequently, being in close accordance with the customs of the time and country. With the uncritical attempt to identify Simon the Pharisee with Simon the Leper, there also falls to the ground the utterly improbable identification of the woman who was a sinner with Mary of Bethany. The time, the place, the circumstances, the character, the words uttered, and the results of the incident recorded in Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3, John 12:3 are all entirely different.
ἵνα φάγῃ μετ' αὐτοῦ. Comp. Luke 16:27, ἐρωτῶ … ἵνα πέμψῃς. In Modern Greek νὰ (= ἵννα) with the subjunctive has almost displaced the infinitive. The invitation was clearly due to a patronising curiosity, if not to a worse and hostile motive. The whole manner of the Pharisee to Jesus was like his invitation, ungracious. But it was part of our Lord’s mission freely to accept the proffered hospitality of all, that He might reach every class.
κατεκλίθη. ‘Reclined at table.’ This 1st aor. pass. was used in a middle sense even by classic writers. See Veitch p. 327. The old method of the Jews had been that of the East in general, to sit at table (ἀναπίπτειν, Luke 11:37; ἀνακεῖσθαι, Luke 7:37; ἀνακλίνεσθαι, Luke 12:37) generally cross-legged on the floor, or on divans (Genesis 27:19; 1 Samuel 20:5; 1 Samuel 20:18; Psalms 128:3; Song of Solomon 1:12, &c.). They had borrowed the custom of reclining on couches (triclinia, comp. ἀρχιτρίκλινος, John 2:8) from the Persians (Esther 1:6; Esther 7:8), the Greeks and Romans, after the Exile (Tobit 2:1; 1 Esdras 4:10; Judith 12:15). The influence of the Greeks had been felt in the nation for three hundred years, and that of the Romans for nearly a hundred years, since the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, B.C. 63.
Verses 36-39
36–39. JESUS IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON
Verse 37
37. ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλός. ‘Who was a sinner in the city.’ No city is named, but if the Christian church is right in identifying this woman with Mary Magdalene, we may assume that the city implied is Magdala, which appears at that time to have been a flourishing place, though now it is only a mud village—El Mejdel. It cannot of course be regarded as indisputable that this woman was the Magdalene, but it is, to say the least, possible; and there is no sufficient reason to disturb the current Christian belief which has been consecrated in so many glorious works of art. See further on Luke 8:2.
ἁμαρτωλός. It was the Jewish term for a harlot, and such had come even to John’s baptism, Matthew 21:32. “Accessit ad Dominum immunda ut redeat munda.” St Aug.
ἐπιγνοῦσα. ‘Getting to know.’ She had not of course received permission to enter, but the prominence of hospitality as the chief of Eastern virtues led to all houses being left open, so that during a meal any one who wished could enter and look on. “To sit down to eat with common people” was one of the six things which no Rabbi or Pupil of the Wise might do; another was “to speak with a woman.” Our Lord freely did both.
ἀλάβαστρον. A vase or phial of alabaster, such as were used for perfumes and unguents (unguenta optime servantur in alabastris, Plin. XIII. 3); but afterwards the word came to mean any phial used for a similar purpose (just as our box originally meant a receptacle made of box-wood). The classical form is ἀλάβαστρος, but its heteroclite plural ἀλάβαστρα led to a change in the nom. sing.
μύρου. This was doubtless one of the implements of her guilty condition (Proverbs 7:17; Isaiah 3:24), and her willingness to sacrifice it was a sign of her sincere repentance (comp. Song of Solomon 4:10).
Verse 38
38. ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. This is explained by the arrangement of the triclinia. The guests reposed on their elbows at the table, with their unsandalled feet outstretched on the couch. Each guest left his sandals beside the door on entering. Literally the verse is, ‘And standing behind beside His feet weeping, with her tears she began to bedew His feet, and with the hairs of her head she wiped them off, and was eagerly kissing His feet, and anointing them with the perfume.’ As she bent over His feet her tears began to fall on them, perhaps accidentally at first, and she wiped them off with the long dishevelled hair (1 Corinthians 11:15) which shewed her shame and anguish; then in her joy and gratitude at finding herself unrepulsed, she poured the unguent over them. The scene and its moral are beautifully expressed in the sonnet of Hartley Coleridge.
“She sat and wept beside His feet. The weight
Of sin oppressed her heart; for all the blame
And the poor malice, of the worldly shame
To her were past, extinct, and out of date:
Only the sin remained—the leprous state.
She would be melted by the heat of love,
By fires far fiercer than are blown to prove
And purge the silver ore adulterate.
She sat and wept, and with her untressed hair
Still wiped the feet she was so blest to touch;
And He wiped off the soiling of despair
From her sweet soul, because she loved so much.”
No one but a woman in the very depths of anguish would have violated all custom by appearing in public with uncovered head (1 Corinthians 11:10).
κλαίουσα. Doubtless at the contrast of His sinlessness and her own stained life. She could not have done thus to the Pharisee, who would have repelled her with execration as bringing pollution by her touch. The deepest sympathy is caused by the most perfect sinlessness. It is not impossible that on that very day she may have heard the “Come unto me” of Matthew 11:28.
βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. To sprinkle or bedew (rather than “to wash,” which is derived by the A. V[163] from Tyndale). The Vulg[164] has rigare, and Wiclif, to moist (comp. Matthew 5:45, βρέχει, ‘He sends His rain’).
κατεφίλει. ‘Was earnestly’ or ‘tenderly kissing,’ as in Acts 20:37.
Verse 39
39. οὗτος. ‘This person.’ The word expresses the supercilious scorn which is discernible throughout in the bearing of the speaker.
τίς καὶ ποταπή. ‘Who, and what kind of character’—viz. one personally known, and of a shameful class. “Who,” because the particular offender was notorious for her beauty and her shame. This rather strengthens the inference that the woman was Mary of Magdala, for the legends of the Jewish Talmud respecting her shew that she was well known.
ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. ‘Who is clinging to him.’ Simon makes a double assumption—first that a prophet would have known the character of the woman, and next that he would certainly have repelled her. The bearing and tone of the Rabbis towards women closely resembled that of some mediaeval monks. They said that no one should stand nearer them than four cubits. But Jesus knew more of the woman than Simon did, and was glad that she should shed on His feet the tears of penitence. A great prophet had declared long before that those which say, “Stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou,” were “a smoke in my nose.” Isaiah 65:5.
ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. (He would have recognised) ‘that she is a sinner.’
Verse 40
40. ἀποκριθείς. “He heard the Pharisee thinking.” St Aug.
σοί. The emphasis is on these words, You have been thinking evil of me: ‘I have something to say to thee.’
Διδάσκαλε. ‘Teacher,’ or ‘Rabbi.’
Verse 41
41. δανιστῇ τινί. ‘Money-lender.’ Vulg[165] foeneratori, and so Wiclif and Tyndale. The A.V[166] took “creditor” from the Rhemish.
δηνάρια πεντακόσια. A denarius was the day’s wages of a labourer and is usually reckoned at 7½d., but really represents much more. Hence 500 denarii would certainly represent as much as £50 in these days. The frequency of our Lord’s illustrations from debtors and creditors shews the disturbed and unprosperous condition of the country under Roman and Herodian oppression.
Verse 42
42. μὴ ἐχόντων αὐτῶν ἀποδοῦναι. Not, as in A. V[167] “when they had nothing to pay,” but ‘when they were unable (had it not in their power) to pay.’ Vulg[168] non habentibus illis, unde redderent. The μὴ represents the thought of the creditor.
ἐχαρίσατο. ‘He remitted,’ involving the idea of that free grace and favour (χάρις) on which St Luke, like St Paul, is always glad to dwell. See Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:8-9; Ephesians 4:32.
Verse 43
43. ὑπολαμβάνω. ‘I imagine;’ ‘I presume.’ The word has a shade of supercilious irony (comp. Acts 2:15), as though Simon thought the question very trivial, and never dreamt that it could have any bearing on himself.
ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας. There is a touch of grave yet gentle sarcasm in the use of this adverb, which involves Simon’s self-condemnation. It is the word so often adopted by Socrates as one of his implements of dialectic irony. But on our Lord’s lips it has none of the tone of personal satisfaction in the entrapment of an adversary which is so perceptible in the Platonic dialogues.
Verse 44
44. βλέπεις; ‘Dost thou mark?’ Hitherto the Pharisee, in accordance with his customs and traditions, had hardly deigned to throw upon her one disdainful glance. Now Jesus bids him look full upon her to shew him that she had really done the honours of his house. Her love had more than atoned for his coldness.
We notice in the language here that rhythmic parallelism, which is often traceable in the words of our Lord, at periods of special emotion.
Into thine house I entered:
Water upon my feet thou gavest not,
But she with her tears bedewed my feet,
And with her tresses wiped them.
A kiss thou gavest me not:
But she, since I entered, ceased not earnestly kissing my feet.
My head with oil thou anointedst not,
But she anointed my feet with perfume.
Wherefore I say to thee, Her sins, her many sins, have been forgiven, because she loved much.
But he to whom little is being forgiven loveth little.
“As oft as I think over this event,” says Gregory the Great, “I am more disposed to weep over it than to preach upon it.”
ὕδωρ μου ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας. Thus Simon had treated his guest with such careless indifference as to have neglected the commonest courtesies and comforts. To sandalled travellers on those burning, rocky, dusty paths, water for the feet was a necessity; John 13:4-5. “Wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree,” Genesis 18:4. “Tarry all night, and wash your feet,” Genesis 19:2. “He brought them into his house, and they washed their feet,” Judges 19:21. “If she have washed the saints’ feet,” 1 Timothy 5:10.
ἔβρεξεν. ‘Bedewed’ or ‘wetted.’
δάκρυσιν. “The most priceless of waters.” Bengel. “She poured forth tears, the blood of the heart.” St Aug.
Verse 45
45. καταφιλοῦσα. ‘Tenderly’ or ‘repeatedly kissing,’ Luke 15:20. Acts 20:37; Matthew 26:49.
Verse 46
46. ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου οὐκ ἤλειψας. This would have been an exceptional mark of honour, though not uncommon. “Let thy head lack no ointment,” Ecclesiastes 9:8; Amos 6:6; Psalms 23:5. Here it is only mentioned to contrast it with the still higher honour of which the sinful woman had thought Him worthy. To anoint the feet was regarded as an extreme luxury (Pliny, H. N. XIII. 4), but the love of the sinner thought no honour too great for her Saviour.
Verse 47
47. ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ. ‘Because.’ No doubt, theologically, faith, not love, is the means of pardon (Luke 7:50); hence, some (with Calvin) interpret the ‘because’ a posteriori, and make it mean ‘she is forgiven,’ as you may conclude from the fact that she loved much (so Bengel). It is more than doubtful whether this was intended. Her love and her forgiveness were mingled with each other in mutual interchange. She loved because she was forgiven; she was forgiven because she loved. Her faith and her love were one; it was “faith working by love” (Galatians 5:6), and the love proved the faith. Spiritual things do not admit of the clear sequences of earthly things. There is with God no before or after, but only an eternal now.
ᾦ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται. The life of conventional respectability excludes flagrant and open transgressions; cold selfishness does not take itself to be sinful. Simon imagined that he had little to be forgiven, and therefore he loved little. Had he been a true saint he would have recognised his debt. The confessions of the holiest are the most heartrending, because they most fully recognise the true nature of sin. What is wanted to awaken ‘much love’ is not ‘much sin’—for we all have that qualification—but deep sense of sin. “Ce qui manque au meilleur pour aimer beaucoup, ce n’est pas le péché; c’est la connaissance du péché.” Godet.
Verse 48
48. ἀφέωνται. ‘Have been forgiven.’ See note on Luke 5:20. The is forgiven of the previous verse is in the present, ‘is being forgiven.’ Both in the Old and New Testaments the readiness of God to forgive the deepest and most numerous sins is dwelt upon (Isaiah 1:18; Isaiah 55:7), and also the absoluteness of the forgiveness (Romans 5:20; 1 John 4:10; 1 John 4:19). There is an obvious analogy between this little parable of the debtors and that of the uncompassionate servant (Matthew 18:23-27).
Verse 49
49. ἤρξαντο … λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. His words caused a shock of surprised silence which did not as yet dare to vent itself in open murmurs.
ὃς καὶ. The καί expresses their indignant thoughts.
Verse 50
50. εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα. The πρὸς implies that He turned from the guests to her. Our Lord would not on this, as on the previous occasion, rebuke them for their thoughts, because the miracle which He had worked was the purely spiritual one of winning back a guilty soul,—a miracle which they could not comprehend. Further, He compassionately desired to set the woman free from a notice which must now have become deeply painful to her shrinking penitence.
ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. The same phrase as in Luke 8:48; Luke 17:19; Luke 18:42. It is found twice in St Mark, once in St Matthew. “Fides non amor; fides ad nos spectat, amore convincuntur alii.” Bengel. The faith of the recipient was the necessary condition of a miracle, whether physical or spiritual, Mark 5:34; Mark 9:23; Matthew 9:2; Matthew 13:58; Matthew 15:28; John 4:50; Acts 3:16; Acts 14:8.
εἰς εἰρήνην. ‘To’ or ‘into peace’ (Luke 8:48)—a translation of the Hebrew leshalôm, “for peace,” 1 Samuel 1:17. ‘Peace’ (shalom) was the Hebrew, as ‘grace’ (χαίρειν) was the Hellenic salutation. See on Luke 2:29, and Excursus VII. It should be noticed as a matter for imitation that our Lord declines to enter into any controversy on the subject. Controversy is always undesirable, except when it becomes indispensable.
Notice that St Luke omits the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany from a deliberate “economy of method,” which leads him to exclude all second or similar incidents to those which he has already related. Thus he omits a second feeding of the multitude, and healings of blind, dumb, and demoniac, of which he severally gives a single specimen. The events of Mark 7:24 to Mark 8:26 and Mark 9:12-14 are probably excluded by St Luke on this principle—to avoid repetition. It is a sign of what German writers call his Sparsamkeit. Nor must we forget that the records of all the manifold activity which at times left the Lord no leisure even to eat, are confined to a few incidents, and only dwell on the details of a few special days.
08 Chapter 8
Verse 1
1. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς. See note on Luke 7:11. The expression marks a new phase, a new departure, in Christ’s mode of action. Hitherto He had made Capernaum His head-quarters; regarded it as “His own city,” and not gone to any great distance from it. At this period—the exact beginning of which is only vaguely marked—He began a wider range of wandering and of missions.
εὐαγγελιζόμενος. The Baptist had preached ‘repentance’ as the preparation for the Kingdom: our Lord preached of the Kingdom itself, and this was “glad tidings,” because the Kingdom of God is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,” Romans 14:17.
Verses 1-3
Luke 8:1-3. THE MINISTERING WOMEN
Verse 2
2. γυναῖκές τινες. This most remarkable circumstance is prominently mentioned by St Luke alone, though alluded to in Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:41. It accords alike with the probability that some of his peculiar sources of information had been derived from women; and with the certainty that he is fond of dwelling on the graciousness and tenderness of Jesus even to a class so much despised and neglected as Eastern women. See Introd. p. 35. At an earlier period (John 4:27) the disciples had been amazed to see Jesus even talking with a woman.
ἡ καλουμένη ΄αγδαληνή. I.e. Mary, who to distinguish her from numerous others who bore that very common name (Miriam), was known from her native place as Mary of Magdala. We have already seen that, as far as tradition is concerned, we cannot be certain that the Christian world is right in generally identifying her with ‘the sinner’ of the last chapter. Origen rejects the identification; St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Jerome are doubtful. The identification is first confidently accepted by Gregory the Great (died A.D. 604). There is nothing however to disprove the fact. In the earlier scene her name might well have been suppressed from the spirit of loving and delicate reticence. The locality of the scene, and the stage of the ministry at which she is introduced, as well as the intense absorbing affection of one who “loved much,” agree with the belief that the sinful woman of chapter 7 was the Magdalene.
΄αγδαληνή. ‘Of Magdala,’ an Aramaic form of Migdol ‘tower.’ Magdala is only mentioned in Matthew 15:39 where the best MSS. read Magadan. See my Life of Christ, II. 1.
ἀφ' ἦς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει. Comp. Matthew 12:45. St Mark (Mark 16:9) uses a similar expression. Some have thought that this excludes the possibility of the life indicated by the words ‘a sinner in the city.’ On the contrary, it agrees well with it. Early Christian writers see in the “many sins” (Luke 7:47) a reference which accords with, if it be not the same as, “seven devils,” and that this may be the meaning is quite certain from Luke 11:26, which suggests the inference of a relapse. Apart from the general question as to ‘demoniac possession’ in particular cases, it is quite certain that Jewish colloquial usage adopted the expression to describe many forms of disease (as for instance hydrophobia, epilepsy, &c.), and many forms of sin (as drunkenness, &c.). The Talmudists (as we have seen) have wild stories to tell of Mary of Magdala, but they agree in describing her as a flagrant sinner rather than as a demoniac.
Verse 3
3. Ἰωάννα. She is mentioned only in Luke 24:10, but had apparently been healed of some infirmity.
γυνὴ Χουζᾶ ἐπιτρόπου Ἡρώδου. She was probably a widow of Chuzas. See Luke 24:10. On ἐπιτρόπου without the article see note on Luke 2:36. The courtiers of Antipas were well aware of the ministry and claims of Jesus. Not only had John the Baptist been a familiar figure among them, but Manaen, Herod’s foster-brother, early became a Christian (Acts 13:1), and whether Chuzas be the courtier (βασιλικος, E. V. “nobleman”) of John 4:46 or not, that courtier could only have been in the retinue of Antipas, and must have made known the healing of his son by Jesus. The word ἐπίτροπος, ‘administrator,’ conveys the impression of a higher rank than “steward” (οἰκονομος). The Rabbis adopted the word in Hebrew letters, and said that Obadiah was Ahab’s ἐπίτροπος. Manaen at Antioch was perhaps the source of St Luke’s special knowledge about the Herodian family.
Σουσάννα. The name means ‘Lily.’
ἕτεραι πολλαί. See Matthew 27:55.
αἵτινες διηκόνουν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐταῖς. The verb διακονεῖν in the sense of pecuniary help is found also in Romans 15:25. This notice is deeply interesting as throwing light on the otherwise unsolved problem of the means of livelihood possessed by Jesus and His Apostles. They had a common purse which sufficed not only for their own needs but for those of the poor (John 13:29). The Apostles had absolutely forsaken their daily callings, but we may suppose that some of them (like Matthew and the sons of the wealthier fisherman Zebedee) had some small resources of their own, and here we see that these women, some of whom (as tradition says of Mary of Magdala) were rich, helped to maintain them. It must also be borne in mind [1] that the needs of an Oriental are very small. A few dates, a little parched corn, a draught of water, a few figs or grapes plucked from the roadside trees, suffice him; and in that climate he can sleep during most of the year in the open air wrapped up in the same outer garment which serves him for the day. Hence the standard of maintenance for a poor man in Palestine is wholly different from that required in such countries as ours with their many artificial needs. And yet [2] in spite of this our Lord was so poor as to be homeless (Luke 9:58), and without the means of even paying the small Temple-tribute of a didrachm (about 1 Samuel 6 d.), which was demanded from every adult Jew. Matthew 17:24; 2 Corinthians 8:9.
Verse 4
4. συνιόντος. ‘Were coming together.’ Our Lord, though ready at all times to utter the most priceless truths even to one lonely and despised listener, yet wisely apportioned ends to means, and chose the assembling of a large multitude for the occasion of a new departure in His style of teaching.
καὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλιν ἐπιπορευομένων. ‘And (a multitude) of those throughout every city resorting to Him.’ A comparison of this Parable and the details respecting its delivery, as preserved in each of the Synoptists (Matthew 13:2-13; Mark 4:1-20), ought alone to be decisive as to the fact that the three Evangelists did not use each other’s narratives, and did not draw from the same written source such as the supposed Proto-Marcus of German theorists. The oral or written sources which they consulted seem to have been most closely faithful in all essentials, but they differed in minute details and expressions as all narratives do. From St Matthew (Matthew 13:1) we learn that Jesus had just left “the house,” perhaps that of Peter at Capernaum; and therefore the place which He chose for His first Parable was probably the strip of sand on the shore of the Lake at Bethsaida. Both St Matthew and St Mark tell us that (doubtless, as on other occasions, to avoid the pressure of the crowd) He got on one of the boats by the lake-side and preached from thence.
διὰ παραβολῆς. St Luke here only reports the Parable of the Sower and its interpretation. St Mark adds that of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29), and that of the grain of mustard-seed (30–32; Luke 13:18-21). St Matthew (Matthew 13:24-53) gives his memorable group of seven Parables: the Sower, the Tares, the Mustard-seed, the Leaven, the Hid Treasure, the Pearl, the Drag-net. This is no doubt due to subjective grouping. Our Lord would not bewilder and distract by mere multiplicity of teachings, but taught “as they were able to hear it” (Mark 4:33). ‘Parable’ is derived from παραβάλλω, ‘I place beside’ in order to compare.
A parable is a pictorial or narrative exhibition of some spiritual or moral truth, by means of actual and not fanciful elements of comparison. It differs from a fable by moving solely within the bounds of the possible and by aiming at the illustration of deeper truths; from a simile in its completer and often dramatic development, as also in its object; from an allegory in not being identical with the truth illustrated. The moral objects which our Lord had in view are explained below (Luke 8:10), but we may notice here the unapproachable superiority of our Lord’s Parables to those of all other teachers. Parables are found scattered throughout the literature of the world. They abound in the poems and sacred books of later religions (Sirach 1:25, “Parables of knowledge are in the treasures of wisdom,”) and they have been frequently adopted in later days. But “never man spake like this Man,” and no parables have ever touched the heart and conscience of mankind in all ages and countries like those of Christ. “He taught them by Parables under which were hid mysterious senses, which shined through their veil, like a bright sun through an eye closed with a thin eyelid.” Jer. Taylor. For Old Testament parables see 2 Samuel 12:1-7; Ecclesiastes 9:14-16; Isaiah 28:23-29. St Luke is especially rich in parables. The word ‘parable’ sometimes stands for the Hebrew mashal, ‘a proverb’ (Luke 4:23; 1 Samuel 10:12; 1 Samuel 24:13); sometimes for a rhythmic prophecy (Numbers 23:7) or dark saying (Psalms 78:2; Proverbs 1:6); and sometimes for a comparison (Mark 13:28).
Verses 4-15
4–15. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER
Verse 5
5. ὁ σπείρων. ‘The sower;’ as also ‘the’ rock, ‘the’ thorns. No doubt these may be regarded as generic articles, marking the class; but they give a more graphic turn to the story, and in all probability Jesus saw, and pointed to, a sower actually working before their eyes. A comparison of the parable and its interpretation in the Synoptists ought alone to prove both their accuracy and their independence. St Mark (Mark 4:3) preserves for us the graphic detail that Jesus prefaced this new method of teaching by the one emphatic word “Hearken!” as though to prepare them for something unusual and memorable.
ὃ μὲν ἔπεσεν παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. The nature of the land in the plain of Gennesareth would, as Dean Stanley noticed (Sin. and Palest. p. 496), and as many have subsequently remarked, furnish an immediate illustration of the words. In the fields close to the shore may be seen the hard beaten paths into which no seed can penetrate; the flights of innumerable birds ready to peck it up; the rocks thinly covered with soil, and the stony ground; the dense tangled growth of weeds and thistles in neglected corners; and the rich deep loam on which the harvests grew with unwonted luxuriance. Doubtless too, as Godet suggests, he saw in His hearers—in the defiant look of some, the grave preoccupied aspect of others; on some faces a shallow enthusiasm, on others a holy receptivity—the moral and spiritual analogue to the various kinds of soil.
κατεπατήθη. This touch is found in St Luke only.
Verse 6
6. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. St Matthew and St Mark say “upon stony places,” and add its speedy growth, and its withering after sunrise from want of root; St Luke dwells rather on the lack of moisture than on the lack of soil.
Verse 7
7. τῶν ἀκανθῶν. In rich soils and hot valleys like Gennesareth the growth of weeds and thorns is as rapid and luxuriant as that of good seed. In summer and autumn there are parts of the plain which are quite impervious from the forest of gigantic thistles which covers them—“so tall and so dense that no horse can break through” (Porter, Palestine, II. 403). It was natural that this circumstances should suggest several of Christ’s illustrations.
Verse 8
8. ἐποίησεν καρπὸν ἑκατονταπλασίονα. St Luke passes over the ‘growing and increasing’ of the fruit (Mark 4:8) and its various degrees of productiveness—thirty and sixty as well as an hundredfold. “Quelle puérilité indigne d’hommes sérieux que ces variations mesquines,” says Godet, “si les évangélistes travaillaient sur un document commun.”
ἐφώνει. This word—‘spake with a loud voice’—shews, like the “Hearken!” in St Mark, the special attention which our Lord called to His new method.
ἀκουέτω. In other words, ‘this teaching is worthy the deepest attention of those who have the moral and spiritual capacity to understand it.’
Verse 9
9. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. St Mark says “those about Him, with the Twelve;” and that they came to Him afterwards when they found Him alone.
Verse 10
10. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν. This verse is rather an answer to the other question, recorded in St Matthew, “why dost thou speak to them in parables?”
δέδοται. ‘It has been given.’
γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια. I.e. to grasp the revealed secrets, the ‘apples of gold’ hid in these ‘networks of silver.’ The proper use of the word ‘mystery’ is the opposite of its current use. It is now generally used to imply something which we cannot understand; in the New Testament it always means something once hidden now revealed, Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 11:25-26; Revelation 17:5, &c. It is derived from μύω, ‘I initiate.’ “God is a revealer of secrets,” Daniel 2:47.
“What if earth
Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein
Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought?”
MILTON.
τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς. Vulg[175] caeteris, ‘to the rest;’ “to them that are without,” Mark 4:11. It has been granted you to grasp these mysteries unveiled; to the rest it has been only given to grasp them under the veil of parables.
ἵνα βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσιν κ.τ.λ. These words are difficult, and (without dwelling on the fact that the particle ἵνα loses in later Greek some of its final force) must not be pressed with unreasonable and extravagant literalism to mean that the express object of teaching by parables was to conceal the message of the Kingdom from all but the disciples. This would have been to put the kindled lamp under a couch or bushel. On the contrary, they were addressed to the multitudes, and deeply impressed them, as they have impressed the world in all ages, and have had the effect, not of darkening truth but of bringing it into brighter light. The varying phrase of St Matthew, “because seeing they see not, &c.,” will help us to understand it. Our Lord wished and meant the multitudes to hearken and understand, and this method awoke their interest and deepened their attention; but the resultant profit depended solely on the degree of their faithfulness. The Parables resembled the Pillar of Fire, which was to the Egyptians a Pillar of Cloud. If men listened with mere intellectual curiosity or hardened prejudice they would only carry away the parable itself, or some complete misapplication of its least essential details; to get at its real meaning required self-examination and earnest thought. Hence parables had a blinding and hardening effect on the false and the proud and the wilful, just as prophecy had in old days (Isaiah 6:9-10, quoted in this connexion in Matthew 13:14, comp. Acts 28:26-27; Romans 11:8). But the Prophecy and the Parable did not create the hardness or stolidity, but only educed it when it existed—as all misused blessings and privileges do. It was only unwillingness to see which was punished by incapacity of seeing. The natural punishment of spiritual perversity is spiritual blindness.
Nothing can be better than the profound remark of Lord Bacon, that “a parable has a double use; it tends to vail, and it tends to illustrate a truth; in the latter case it seems designed to teach, in the former to conceal.”
“Though truths in manhood darkly join,
Deep seated in our mystic frame,
We yield all blessing to the name
Of Him who made them current coin.
For Wisdom dealt with mortal powers,
Where truth in closest words shall fail,
When truth embodied in a tale
Shall enter in at lowly doors.”
Verse 11
11. ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. We have the same metaphor in Colossians 1:5-6; 1 Corinthians 3:6; and a similar one in James 1:21, “the engrafted word;” 2 Esdras 9:31; 2 Esdras 9:33, “Behold, I sow my law in you, and it shall bring fruit in you … yet they that received it perished, because they kept not the thing that was sown in them.”
Verse 12
12. οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. The prepositions are used with accurate variety, παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας, εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας, ἐν τῇ καλῇ γῇ. The word σπαρέντες must be understood from σπόρος. The seed is (grammatically) identified with those into whose hearts it is sown. More definitely the phrase would have been ‘The seed sown by the wayside indicates the moral condition of those who, &c.’ Notice the intensity of thought which identifies the scattered seeds with those in whose hearts they are sown. “The way is the heart beaten and dried by the passage of evil thoughts.” H. de S. Victore. These are hearers who are hardened—either beaten flat (i) by lifeless familiarity—heartless formalists, Pharisaic theologians, and insincere professors; or (ii) by perversity and indifference, the habit and custom of a worldly and dissolute life.
ὁ διάβολος. The Accuser or Slanderer. St Mark has “the wicked one,” St Matthew, “Satan.”
αἴρει. ‘Snatches,’ Matthew 13:19.—It is done in a moment; by a smile at the end of the sermon; by a silly criticism at the church door; by foolish gossip on the way home. These are “the fowls of the air” whom the Evil One uses in this task.
ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, not as in A.V[176], “out of their hearts,” for the prep. is not ἐκ but ἀπό, “from their heart.” The seed had not sunk in; it only lay on the surface.
ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν. ‘That they may not by believing be saved.’ “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip,” or rather “drift away from them,” Hebrews 2:1.
Verse 13
13. οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας. Shallow, impulsive listeners, whose enthusiasm is hot and transient as a blaze in the straw.
μετὰ χαρᾶς. “Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways,” Isaiah 58:2. “Thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice … for they hear thy words, but they do them not,” Ezekiel 33:32. Herod “heard John gladly,” Mark 6:20.
ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ. Temptation in any form of “affliction or persecution” (Matt., Mk.) which tests the moral nature.
ἀφίστανται. Literally ‘stand aloof:’ ‘apostatise;’ ‘immediately they are offended,’ Matt., Mk. See a very striking instance of this in John 6:66.
Verse 14
14. τὸ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας πεσόν. Here the grand paradox which identifies the seed with its recipient is very marked. See especially Matthew 13:19, where “he that received the seed by the way-side, &c.” should be ‘he that was sown by the way-side, &c.’ The class here described are worldly, ambitious, preoccupied, luxurious listeners who feel the “expulsive power” of earthly careers and pleasures crowding out the growth of the good seed. The former class was more superficially touched; this class have not “broken up their fallow ground,” and therefore “sow among thorns.”
μεριμνῶν. Catullus talks of ‘sowing thorny cares in the heart.’
πλούτου. “The deceitfulness of riches” (Matt., Mk.).
πορευόμενοι συνπνίγονται. This seems to be intentionally altered from the expression used by St Mark, αἱ μέριμναι … εἰσπορευόμεναι συμπνίγουσι.
οὐ τελεσφοροῦσιν. Literally, ‘do not perfect’ (anything).
Verse 15
15. κατέχουσιν, “hold it fast.” Vulg[177] retinent. Comp. Luke 11:28; John 14:21; 1 Corinthians 11:2. “Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee,” Psalms 119:11. These are the opposite of the “forgetful hearers,” James 1:25. For them the seed does not fall ‘on the way.’
καρποφοροῦσιν ἐν ὑπομονῇ. See Luke 21:19. Not as in thorns, not as on the rocky ground. The hundredfold harvest does not come at once, but “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” These words are added by St Luke alone. Patience or persevering consistency is a favourite word with St Paul. It is “strength of mind sustained by good hope … The sum of Christianity.” Bengel.
Verse 16
16. λύχνον. “A lamp.” The connexion lies partly in the antithesis between penal obscurity and the dissemination of added light.
σκεύει. St Luke uses the word as more intelligible to his Gentile readers than “bushel.”
ὑποκάτω κλίνης. ‘Under a couch.’ The ancient Jews had nothing resembling our bed. They slept on divans, or on mats laid upon the floor, as is still the case in the East. The best comment on this verse is Matthew 5:14; Matthew 5:16, “Ye are the light of the world.… Let your light so shine before men, &c.” John the Baptist is compared to ‘a lamp kindled and shining,’ and here the disciples are compared to it. Christ lighted the flame in their souls to be a beacon to all the world.
ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν. ‘Places it on a lamp-stand.’
Verses 16-18
16–18. HOW TO USE THE LIGHT WHICH CHRIST HAS THUS KINDLED
Verse 17
17. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτόν. This verse, like the parallel (which occurs in a different connexion in Matthew 10:26), is usually quoted of the discovery of secret crimes. The truth which would in that case be illustrated is often mentioned elsewhere in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:5), but here in both instances the context shews that the first meaning of Christ was entirely different from this. He is not thinking of the discovery of crimes, but of the right use and further dissemination of Divine light. The truths now revealed privately to faithful hearers, and only dimly shadowed forth to others, should soon be flashed over all the world. Parables first yielded their full significance to the disciples, but found “a springing and germinant fulfilment in every age.”
ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ. This is the reading of א BL. According to Winer, p. 375, it is the only passage in the N.T. in which the subjunctive, and not the indicative, is used after phrases like οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅς. The future indicative (γενήσεται) precedes the subjunctive, in almost the same sense, as frequently in Homer.
Verse 18
18. πῶς ἀκούετε. And also “what ye hear,” Mark 4:24.
δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. Comp. Luke 19:26. It was evidently a thought to which our Lord recurred, John 15:2.
ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν. “That which he thinketh he hath.” This fancied possession is mere self-deception. The Greek might however be rendered as in the A. V[178] and Genevan, “he seemeth to have.”
Verse 19
19. παρεγένετο δέ. The Rec[179] has the plural; the reading παρεγένετο would imply that the Virgin took a specially prominent part in the incident. Joseph is never mentioned after the scene in the Temple. This incident can hardly be the same as those in Mark 3:31-35; Matthew 12:46-50, because in both of those cases the context is wholly different. St Luke may however have misplaced this incident, since here, as in the other Evangelists, relatives of Jesus are represented as standing outside a house of which the doors were densely thronged, whereas the explanation of the Parable had been given in private. It is here merely said that they wished to see Him; but the fact that they came in a body seems to shew that they desired in some way to direct or control His actions. The fullest account of their motives is found in Mark 3:21, where we are told that they wished “to seize Him” or “get possession of His person,” because they said “He is beside Himself,”—perhaps yielding to the half suspicion which had been deliberately encouraged by the Pharisees. We must remember that His brethren “did not believe in Him” (John 7:5), i.e. their belief in Him was only the belief that He was a Prophet who did not realize their Messianic ideal. It needed the Resurrection to convert them.
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Possibly (Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35) His sisters also came.
Verses 19-21
19–21. CHRIST’S MOTHER AND HIS BRETHREN
Verse 20
20. ἀπηγγέλη αὐτῷ. The word λεγόντων is added by some MSS. It is then a genitive absolute with the subject suppressed.
Verse 21
21. μήτηρ μου. Not ἡ μήτηρ. ‘Mother and brethren to me are those who,’ &c.
οὗτοί εἰσιν. The demonstrative implies the “looking round at those sitting in a circle about Him” of Mark 3:34, and the “stretching forth His hand towards His disciples” of Matthew 12:49. “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14; comp. Luke 2:49; John 2:4; John 14:21; Hebrews 2:11). His earthly relatives needed the lesson that they must recognise in Him a Being who stood far above all relationships “after the flesh” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Even disciples must “hate” father and mother in comparison with Christ (comp. Deuteronomy 33:9).
Verse 22
22. ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. ‘On one of the days.’ From Mark 4:35; Matthew 8:18, we should infer that this event took place in the evening on which He began to teach the crowd in parables, and that—attracted by the beauty and novelty of His teaching they lingered round Him till, in utter weariness, He longed to escape to the secluded loneliness of the Eastern shore of the lake. Possibly the interference of His kinsmen may have added the last touch to the fatigue and emotion which imperatively demanded retirement and rest.
εἰς πλοῖον. St Matthew says ‘the boat,’ which usually waited on His movements; very probably the one which had belonged to Peter. Before the boat pushed off, we learn that three aspirants for discipleship came to Him, Matthew 8:19-22 (Luke 9:57-62).
εἰς τὸ πέραν. The Peraean side of the Lake of Galilee has always been comparatively uninhabited, mainly because the escarpment of barren hills approaches within a quarter of a mile of the shore. Its solitude contrasted all the more with the hum of crowded and busy life on the plain of Gennesareth.
τῆς λίμνης. See on Luke 5:1.
ἀνήχθησαν. Such was His weariness and eagerness to get away that they took Him ‘as He was’—without even pausing for any food or refreshment—into the boat, Mark 4:36.
Verses 22-25
22–25. CHRIST STILLING THE STORM
Verse 23
23. ἀφύπνωσεν. ‘He fell into deep sleep.’ The day had been one of incessant toil; and He was resting (as St Mark tells us, reflecting the vivid reminiscence of St Peter) ‘in the stern on the steersman’s leather cushion,’ Mark 4:38 : contrast with this Jonah 1:5.
κατέβη λαῖλαψ. ‘There swept down a hurricane.’ St Matthew uses the less accurate word σεισμός. The suddenness and violence of this ‘hurricane’ is in exact accordance with what we know of the Lake. The winds from the snowy peaks of Hermon rush down the Peraean wadies into the burning tropical air of the lake-basin with extraordinary suddenness and impetuosity (Thomson, Land and Book, II. 25). The lake may look like a sheet of silver, when in one moment there will be a darkening ripple, and in the next it will be lashed into storm and foam. The outburst of this storm perhaps frightened back the boats which started with Him, Mark 4:36.
συνεπληροῦντο. ‘Were being filled.’ ‘The waves were dashing into the boat, so that it was getting full,’ Mark 4:37; ‘the boat was being hidden under the waves,’ Matthew 8:24. The tossing ship (Navicella) has been accepted in all ages as the type of the Church in seasons of peril.
Verse 24
24. ἀπολλύμεθα. ‘We are perishing!’ ‘Lord! save! we are perishing,’ Matthew 8:25. ‘Rabbi, carest thou not that we are perishing?’ Mark 4:38. The peril was evidently most imminent.
ὁ δὲ διεγερθείς. ‘But He, being roused from sleep.’
ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ. Speaking to the wind and the billows of the water as though they were living powers (Psalms 106:9, “He rebuked the Red Sea also”), or to the evil powers which may be conceived to wield them to the danger of mankind. St Mark alone preserves the two words uttered “Hush! be stilled!” the first to silence the roar, the second the tumult. St Matthew tells us that He quietly uttered ‘Why are ye cowards, ye of little faith?’ and then, having stilled the tumult of their minds, rose and stilled the tempest.
Verse 25
25. ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν; “They had some faith, but it was not ready at hand.” Bengel.
τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν; ‘Who then is this?’ Comp. Luke 4:36, Luke 9:9, Luke 24:13. The ἄρα expresses the same surprise and emotion conveyed by the τίς, ‘What kind of Being,’ of St Matthew. Psalms 107:23-30.
Verse 26
26. τῶν Γερασηνῶν. In all three narratives, here, Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-19, the MSS. vary between Gergesenes, Gadarenes, and Gerasenes, and Tischendorf follows א in reading Gadarenes (by a clerical error, Gazarenes) in St Matthew, Gerasenes in St Mark, and Gergesenes here.
i. Gadara, of which the large ruins are now seen at Um Keis, is three hours’ distance from the extreme south end of the Lake, and is separated from the scene of the miracle by the deep precipitous ravine of the Hieromax (Jarmuk). Gadarenes may be the right reading in St Matthew (א BCMΔ and MSS. mentioned by Origen) but, if so, it only gives the name of the entire district. Gadara was essentially a Greek city, and had two amphitheatres and a literary Greek society, and the worst features of Hellenic life.
ii. Gerasenes may be the right reading in St Mark (א BD, &c.). ‘Gerasa,’ now Djerash, is fifty miles from the Lake, and almost in Arabia, but it was an important town (Jos. B. J. III. 3), and like Gadara may have been used as the name of the entire district.
iii. Gergesenes is almost certainly the right reading here (א LX). It was the reading which, because of the distance of Gerasa and Gadara, Origen wished to introduce into Matthew 8:28, being aware that there was a small town called ‘Gergesa’ in the Wady Semakh, which was known also to Eusebius and Jerome, and was pointed out as the scene of the miracle. Yet the reading “Gergesenes” of א, in St Luke, could hardly have been due to the mere conjecture of Origen in the parallel passage of St Matthew, for it is found in other uncials, in most cursives, and in the Coptic, Ethiopic and other versions. Gergesa has however nothing to do with the ancient Girgashites (Deuteronomy 7:1 ; Joshua 24:11), who were probably at the West of the Jordan. The question as to the place intended as the scene of the miracle (whatever reading be adopted) may be considered as having been settled by Dr Thomson’s discovery of ruins named Kerzha (the natural corruption of Gergesa) nearly opposite Capernaum. The name of this little obscure place may well have been given by St Matthew, who knew the locality, and by so accurate an inquirer as St Luke. The reading may have been altered by later copyists who knew the far more celebrated Gadara and Gerasa. Hence we can attach no importance to the attempt to explain away the story, because Gadara is said to mean ‘fold,’ and Garash ‘to cast out,’ and Gergesa (according to Origen) παροικία ἐκβεβληκότων.
Verses 26-39
26–39. THE GERGESENE DEMONIAC
Verse 27
27. ὑπήντησεν ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως. ‘There met him a man of the city.’ He had been a resident in Gergesa till his madness began. St Matthew (as in the case of Bartimaeus) mentions two demoniacs, but the narrative is only concerned with one. There may of course have been another hovering in the neighbourhood. The variation in St Matthew is at least a valuable proof of the independence of the Evangelists.
ἔχων δαιμόνια. ‘Having demons.’ The δαιμόνια were supposed by the Jews to be not devils (i.e. fallen angels), but the spirits of wicked men who were dead (Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3). See on Luke 4:33; Luke 8:2.
καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον. ‘And for a long time wore no cloke.’ He may have been naked, since the tendency to strip the person of all clothes is common among madmen; here however it only says that he wore no ἱμάτιον. He may have had on the χιτών, or under-garment. Naked, homicidal maniacs who live in caves and tombs are still to be seen in Palestine. Warburton saw one in a cemetery fighting, amid fierce yells and howlings, with wild dogs for a bone. Crescent and Cross, II. 352.
ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν. See Thomson’s Land and Book, p. 376. This was partly a necessity, for in ancient times there were no such things as penitentiaries or asylums, and an uncontrollable maniac, driven from the abodes of men, could find no other shelter than tombs and caverns. This would aggravate his frenzy, for the loneliness and horror of these dark rocky tombs (traces of which are still to be seen near the ruins of Kherza or the sides of Wady Semakh) were intensified by the prevalent belief that they were haunted by shedim, or ‘evil spirits,’—the ghosts of the wicked dead (Nidda, f. 17 a, &c.). St Mark gives (Luke 5:4) a still more graphic picture of the superhuman strength and violence of this homicidal and ghastly sufferer.
Verse 28
28. τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί. I.e. ‘Why should’st thou interfere with me?’ 2 Samuel 16:10; 2 Samuel 19:22. See Luke 4:24. Bauer refers to obvious imitations of this narrative in the story of the Lamia expelled by Apollonius of Tyana (Philostr. IV. 25).
τοῦ ὑψίστου. Probably the epithet was customary in exorcisms or attempted exorcisms, and hence we find it used by another demoniac (Acts 16:17). Jesus is not so called elsewhere, except in Luke 1:32.
μή με βασανίσῃς. ‘The demons … believe and tremble,’ James 2:19. On this conception of torment see Mark 1:24; Matthew 18:34.
Verse 29
29. παρήγγελλεν. ‘He commanded.’
πολλοῖς χρόνοις usually means ‘for a long time.’ Comp. Plut. Thess. VI. πολλοῖς χρόνοις ὕστερον, ‘long afterwards.’
Φυλασσόμενος. ‘Being kept under guard.’ The A. V[180] misses this curious point in the narrative, preserved by St Luke only,—namely, that ‘he was bound in manacles and fetters, being under guard.’ The omission is corrected in the R. V[181], comp. Luke 4:10.
ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου. The other reading δαίμονος (of A and other MSS.) is very remarkable, for it is the only place in the Gospel in which δαίμων occurs, and δαίμονες only in the parallel places (Matthew 8:31; Mark 5:12). On the other δαιμόνιον occurs 45 times, and πνεῦμα 27 times.
εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους. ‘Into the deserts,’—regarded as a peculiar haunt of Azazel and other demons. Matthew 12:43; Tobit 8:3; see on Luke 4:1. (There are obvious allusions to the Gospel narrative of this demoniac and the demoniac boy in Lucian, Philopseudes, 16.)
Verse 30
30. τί σοι ὄνομά ἐστιν; The question was no doubt asked in mercy. Gently to ask a person’s name is often an effectual way to calm the agitations and fix the wavering thoughts of these sufferers.
Λεγιών. A legion consisted of 6,000 soldiers, and this man (who was probably a Jew) would have become familiar with the name since the Roman conquest of Palestine. The ancient Megiddo was now called Legio, still Ledjûn. The answer shewed how wildly perturbed was the man’s spirit, and how complete was the duality of his consciousness. He could not distinguish between himself and the multitudes of demons by whom he believed himself to be possessed. His individuality was lost in demoniac hallucinations. For multitudinous possession comp. Luke 8:2, Matthew 12:45.
Verse 31
31. παρεκάλουν. If παρεκάλει be the right reading, it should be rendered “he besought Him,” for the plural is used in the next verse.
εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον. The ‘abyss’ (Hebrew tehôm) intended is perhaps the prison of wicked spirits (Romans 10:7; Judges 1:6; Revelation 20:3). St Mark says “that He would not send them out of the country.”
Verse 32
32. χοίρων ἱκανῶν. St Mark says “about 2000.” Of course, if the owners of these swine were Jews, they were living in flagrant violation of the Law; but the population of Peraea was largely Greek and Syrian.
εἰς ἐκείνους εἰσελθεῖν. The Jews, as we have already seen, believed that physical and mental evil was wrought by the direct agency of demons, and attributed to demons not only the cases of “possession,” but many other classes of illness (melancholia, brain-disease, heart-disease, &c.) which we do not usually regard in this light. They also believed that demons could take possession even of animals, and they attributed to demons the hydrophobia of dogs and the rage of bulls. “Perhaps,” says Archbishop Trench (On the Miracles, p. 185), “we make to ourselves a difficulty here, too easily assuming that the whole animal world is wholly shut up in itself, and incapable of receiving impressions from that which is above it. The assumption is one unwarranted by deeper investigations, which lead rather to an opposite conclusion—not to the breaking down of the boundaries between the two worlds, but to the shewing in what wonderful ways the lower is receptive of impressions from the higher, both for good and for evil.” Further than this the incident leads into regions of uncertain speculation, into which it is impossible to enter, and in which none will dogmatize but those who are least wise. Milton seems to find no difficulty in the conception that evil spirits could ‘incarnate and imbrute’ their essence into a beast:
“In at the serpent’s mouth
The Devil entered; and his brutal sense
The heart or head possessing, soon inspired
With act intelligential.” Par. Lost.
Comp. Dante, Inf. XXV. 136,
“L’ anima, ch’ era fiera divenuta
Si fugge,” &c.
Verse 33
33. κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ. ‘Down the precipice.’ Near Kherza is the only spot on the entire lake where a steep slope sweeps down to within a few yards of the sea, into which the herd would certainly have plunged if hurried by any violent impulse down the hill. (Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 462). If it be asked whether this was not a destruction of property, the answer is that the antedating of the death of a herd of unclean animals was nothing compared with the deliverance of a human soul. Our Lord would therefore have had a moral right to act thus even if He had been a mere human Prophet. Besides, to put it on the lowest ground, the freeing of the neighbourhood from the peril and terror of this wild maniac was a greater benefit to the whole city than the loss of this herd. Jesus did not command the spirits to go into the swine; if He permitted anything which resulted in their destruction it was to serve higher and more precious ends. “God the Word,” says Lord Bacon, “wished to do nothing which breathed not of grace and beneficence;” and after mentioning the stern miracles of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, St Peter and St Paul, he adds, “but Jesus did nothing of this kind … the spirit of Jesus is the spirit of the Dove. He wrought no miracle of judgment, all of beneficence.” Meditt. Sacr. on Mark 12:37. The miracles of Christ were all redemptive acts and spiritual lessons.
Verse 34
34. ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν. A breviloquentia for ‘They went into the city and reported,’ as in Matthew 8:33, ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα.
Verse 35
35. τὸ γεγονός. ‘What had happened’ (A.V[182] “what was done”).
παρὰ τοὺς πόδας. In the attitude of a disciple.
ἱματισμένον. Perhaps one of the disciples had thrown a cloke (ἱμάτιον) over his nakedness or his rags.
Verse 37
37. ἠρώτησαν … ἀπελθεῖν. The opposite to the request of the Samaritans (John 4:40). Unlike Peter, they meant what they said. Preferring their swine to Christ, they felt that His presence was dangerous to their greed. And our Lord acted on the principle of not casting that which was holy to dogs, nor pearls before men whose moral character tended to become like that of their own swine. At Gadara the worst iniquities were prevalent. It may be that if they had not deliberately begged Christ to leave them they might have been spared the fearful massacre and ruin—fire, and sword, and slavery—which befel them at the hands of the Romans in less than 40 years after this time (Jos. B. J. III. 7, § 1, IV. 7, § 4). But
“We, ignorant of ourselves,
Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers
Deny us for our good.”
For other instances of prayers fatally granted see Exodus 10:28-29; Numbers 22:20; Psalms 78:29-31; on the other hand, a refused boon is sometimes a blessing. 2 Corinthians 12:8-9. The result of their wilful sensuality was that the time never came when
“E’en the witless Gadarene,
Preferring Christ to swine, shall learn
That life is sweetest, when ’tis clean.”
συνείχοντο. ‘They were oppressed.’
Verse 38
38. ἐδέετο. An Ionic form, but found also in Attic.
Verse 39
39. διηγοῦ. This command valuably illustrates one of the reasons why our Lord commanded reticence in other instances. To the region of Gadara He did not intend to return, and therefore the proclamation of a miracle would not cause Him to be surrounded by curious crowds.
Verse 40
40. ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὸν ὁ ὄχλος. The multitude welcomed him. We have the same verb apparently in this sense in Acts 15:4; Acts 28:30, and elsewhere. They would see the sail of His boat as it started back from Gergesa, and the storm had probably driven back the other boats. He would naturally sail to Bethsaida or Capernaum. It is impossible here to enter into the uncertain question as to the exact order of events. For all details on that subject I must refer to my Life of Christ.
Verse 41
41. καὶ ἰδού. St Matthew places this message of Jairus after the farewell feast which he gave to his friends before abandoning for ever his office of tax-gatherer. At that feast arose the question about fasting, and St Matthew (Matthew 9:18) says that Jairus came ‘while Jesus was yet speaking these things,’ and in so definite a note of time, on a day to him so memorable, he could hardly be inexact. On the other hand, St Mark says, and St Luke implies, that the message reached Jesus as He disembarked on the seashore. Hence it has been supposed that Jesus heard the first entreaty from Jairus on the shore when his daughter was dying (Luke 8:42; Mark 5:23), but instead of going straight to the house of Jairus went first to Matthew’s feast; and that Jairus then came to the feast in agony to say that she was just dead (Matthew 9:18). The very small discrepancies are however quite easily explicable without this conjecture, and it was wholly unlike the method of Jesus to interpose a feast between the request of an agonised father and His act of mercy.
Ἰάειρος. ‘Jair,’ Judges 10:3. He is one of the few recipients of miracles whose name is recorded.
ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς. The synagogues had no clergy, but were managed by laymen, at the head of whom was the “ruler,” whose title of Rosh hakkenéseth was as familiar to the Jews as that of Rabbi. His functions resembled those of a leading elder. The appeal of such a functionary shews the estimation in which our Lord was still held among the Galileans.
εἰσελθεῖν. Jair had not the faith of the heathen centurion.
Verses 41-56
41–56. THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD
Verse 42
42. μονογενής. St Luke, whose keen sympathies are everywhere observable in his Gospel, mentions the same touching fact in the case of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12), and the lunatic boy (Luke 9:38).
ἀπέθνησκεν. St Matthew says “is even now dead.” Perhaps we catch in these variations an echo of the father’s despairing uncertainty.
συνέπνιγον. A strong word, literally ‘were choking’: comp. Luke 8:14. συνέθλιβον is the reading of CL.
Verse 43
43. ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος. The ἐν indicates her condition: comp. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ, Luke 4:36; ἐν περιτομῇ, Romans 4:10.
ἰατροῖς. The dativus commodi, ‘upon physicians.’ The more classical construction would be the εἰς ἰατροὺς of the Rec[183] but it is probably a correction.
προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον. Literally, ‘having in addition spent’ her whole means of livelihood.
ἀπ' οὐδενὸς θεραπευθῆναι. St Luke, perhaps with a fellow-feeling for physicians, does not add the severer comment of St Mark, that the physicians had only made her worse (Luke 5:26). The Talmudic receipts for the cure of this disease were specially futile,—such as to set the sufferer in a place where two ways meet, with a cup of wine in her hand, and let some one come behind and frighten her, and say, Arise from thy flux; or “dig seven ditches, burn in them some cuttings of vines not four years old, and let her sit in them in succession, with a cup of wine in her hand, while at each remove some one says to her, Arise from thy flux.” (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.)
Verse 44
44. προσελθοῦσα ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου κ.τ.λ. ‘Approaching from behind touched the tassel of His outer robe.’ This is a miracle ‘by the way’ (obiter), but, as Fuller says, “His obiter is more to the purpose than our iter.” She sought to steal (as it were) a miracle of grace, and fancied that Christ’s miracles were a matter of nature, not of will and purpose. Probably the intense depression produced by her disease, aggravated by the manner in which for twelve years every one had kept aloof from her and striven not to touch her, had quite crushed her spirits. By the Levitic law she had to be “put apart, and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean” (Leviticus 15:19; Leviticus 15:25). The word translated “border” (κράσπεδον, Heb. tsitsith) is a tassel at each “wing” or corner of the tallith or mantle (Matthew 14:36). The Law (Numbers 15:38-40) required that each tassel should be bound with a thread (not as in E. V. ribband) of blue, the colour of heaven, and so the type of revelation. The strict Jews to this day wear these tassels, though they are usually concealed. The Pharisees, to proclaim their orthodoxy, made them conspicuously large, Matthew 23:5. One of the four tassels hung over the shoulder at the back, and this was the one which the woman touched. (For full particulars of the Rabbinic rules about these tassels see an article by the present writer, in the Expositor, v. 219.) The quasi-sacredness of the tassels may have fostered her impulse to touch the one that hung in view.
Verse 45
45. ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ. St Mark merely says ‘His disciples’; but the question is in exact accordance with that presumptuous impetuosity which marked the as yet imperfect stage of Peter’s character.
Verse 46
46. ἥψατό μου τίς. ‘Some one touched me.’ “They press; she touches.” Aug. “Flesh presses; faith touches.” Id. Our Lord’s question was meant to reach the woman’s heart: comp. Genesis 3:9; Genesis 4:9; 2 Kings 5:25.
ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν ἀπ' ἐμοῦ. Literally, ‘I recognised that power had gone forth from me.’ Comp. Luke 6:19.
Verse 47
47. τρέμουσα ἦλθεν. Because by her touch she had communicated to Him Levitical uncleanness; and this by one of the Rabbis or Pharisees would have been regarded as an intolerable act of presumption and injury. To this day the Jewish Rabbis (or Chakams) in the East are careful not even to be touched by a woman’s dress (Frankl., Jews in the East, II. 81).
Verse 48
48. θύγατερ. The only recorded occasion on which our Lord used that tender word to a woman.
ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. Literally, ‘hath saved thee.’ Thy faith—not the superstitious and surreptitious touch of my tallith’s fringe. Jesus thus compelled her to come forth from her timid enjoyment of a stolen miracle that He might confer on her a deeper and more spiritual blessing.
εἰς εἰρήνην. Literally, to, or for peace. Tradition says that the name of this woman was Veronica (Evang. Nicodem. Luke 8:6), and that it was she who gave to our Lord the famous legendary handkerchief to wipe His face on the way to Calvary. At Paneas (Caesarea Philippi) there was a bronze statue which was supposed to be her votive offering, and to represent this scene (Euseb. H.E. VII. 18; Sozomen, H.E. Luke 8:21); and on this account Julian the Apostate or Maximin is said to have destroyed it. All this is very improbable. Early Christian writers were too credulous about these statues. Justin Martyr took a statue of the Sabine god Semo Sancus for one of Simon Magus.
Verse 49
49. μηκέτι σκύλλε τὸν διδάσκαλον. ‘Worry the Teacher no longer.’ For the colloquial verb, preserved also in St Mark, see Luke 7:6.
Verse 50
50. ἀκούσας. The remark was addressed to Jairus, and St Mark says that Jesus ‘overheard it.’
πίστευσον. The aor. refers to the immediate act of faith. The πίστευε of the Rec[184] would mean ‘keep up thy faith.’
Verse 51
51. εἰ μὴ Πέτρον κ.τ.λ., as at the Transfiguration and at Gethsemane, Mark 9:2; Mark 14:33.
Verse 52
52. ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν. ‘Beat their breasts on account of her.’ Comp. Luke 23:27 and Nahum 2:7. St Mark gives a graphic picture of the tumult, and loud cries, and wailings (alalai, the Egyptian wilweleh). Even the poorest were obliged to provide for a funeral two flute-players and one wailing woman. See Ecclesiastes 12:5; Jeremiah 9:17; Amos 5:16; 2 Chronicles 35:25. These public mourners were called sappedans.
οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. To take this literally is to contradict the letter and spirit of the whole narrative. It is true that in “our friend Lazarus sleepeth” the verb used is not καθεύδειν but κοιμᾶσθαι; but that is in a different writer (John 11:11), and the word better suits one who had been four days dead. Our Lord’s object was to silence this idle uproar.
Verse 53
53. κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. Literally, ‘were utterly deriding Him.’ ‘To laugh to scorn’ is used by Shakespeare, e.g.
“Our castle’s strength
Will laugh a siege to scorn.”
Macbeth, Luke 5:5.
Verse 54
54. [ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας καί.] These words, being omitted by א B DLX, are probably interpolated here, from the other Synoptists. Our Lord could not feel the smallest sympathy for these simulated agonies of people, who (to this day) “weep, howl, beat their breasts, and tear their hair according to contract” (Thomson, Land and Book, I. viii.). And further these solemn deeds required calm and faith, Acts 9:40; 2 Kings 4:33.
αὐτὸς δὲ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς. St Luke preserves this gentle detail, as well as the kind order to give her food. St Mark gives the two Aramaic words which our Lord used, “Talitha cumi!” On these occasions He always used the fewest possible words (Luke 7:14; John 11:43).
ἡ παῖς. On this nominative, used instead of the vocative with imperative, see note on Luke 10:21; Matthew 27:29.
Verse 56
56. μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν. See on Luke 5:14. And as usual the injunction was probably unheeded.
09 Chapter 9
Verse 1
1. συνκαλεσάμενος δὲ τοὺς δώδεκα. The word συνκαλ. ‘calling them together,’ not merely προσκαλ. ‘calling them up to Him,’ indicates the special solemnity of the occasion. This was at the close of the missionary journeys alluded to in Matthew 9:35; Mark 6:6. St Matthew gives a touching reason for the mission of the Twelve. They were sent because Jesus pitied the multitude, who were like harassed and panting sheep without a shepherd, and like a harvest left unreaped for want of labourers (Matthew 9:36-38). The Apostles thus became, as their name implied, ‘emissaries’ (sheloochîm), and this was an important step in their training.
δύναμιν καὶ ἐξουσίαν. Power (δύναμις) is the capacity, and authority (ἐξουσία), the right to act. See Luke 10:19; Revelation 13:7.
ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια ‘Over all the demons.’
Verses 1-6
Luke 9:1-6. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE
Verse 2
2. ἀπέστειλεν αὐτούς. Two and two for their mutual comfort. Mark 6:7.
ἰᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς. ‘To heal the sick.’ There seems to be no essential difference intended between ἰᾶσθαι and θεραπεύειν ‘to tend,’ which is the reading of some MSS., unless it points to the curious fact mentioned by St Mark that they anointed the sick with oil (Luke 6:13; comp. James 5:14).
Verse 3
3. εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς. For a much fuller account of the instructions given to the Twelve, see Matthew 10:5-15. Some of these are recorded by St Luke as given also to the Seventy, Luke 10:1-16.
μήτε ῥάβδον. So א AB &c. The plural may have been frivolously introduced by some copyist who wished to avoid an apparent discrepancy with Mark 6:8, “save a staff only.” St Matthew also says, ‘not even a staff.’ Minute and wholly unimportant as the variation would have been, it may turn on the fact that our Lord told them not specially to procure (μὴ κτήσησθε, Matt.) these things for the journey; or on the fact that speaking in Aramaic He used the phrase כי אם (kee im), which might be explained ‘even if you have a staff it is unnecessary.’ Meanwhile the variations furnish an interesting proof of the independence of the three Synoptists.
πήραν. A ‘wallet,’ a bag of kid’s skin carried over the shoulder to contain a few dates or other common necessaries. 1 Samuel 17:40. (Thomson, Land and Book, p. 355.)
μήτε ἄρτον. Which they usually took with them, Luke 9:13; Matthew 16:7.
μήτε ἀργύριον. Literally, ‘silver.’ St Luke uses the word because it was the common metal for coinage among the Greeks. St Mark uses ‘copper,’ the common Roman coinage.
μήτε ἀνὰ δύο χιτῶνας. ‘Do not carry with you a second tunic or under-garment (ketoneth)’—which indeed is a rare luxury among poor Orientals. (See on Luke 3:11.) If they carried a second tunic at all they could only do so conveniently by putting it on (Mark 6:9). St Mark adds that they were to wear sandals, and St Matthew that they were not to have travelling shoes (ὑποδήματα). The general spirit of the instructions merely is, ‘Go forth in the simplest, humblest manner, with no hindrances to your movements and in perfect faith’; and this, as history shews, has always been the method of the most successful missions. At the same time we must remember that the wants of the Twelve were very small (see on Luke 8:3) and were secured by the open hospitality of the East (Thomson, Land and Book, p. 346). For the distributive use of ἀνὰ see John 2:6, ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο; Mark 6:40, ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα. The ἔχειν is a mixture of the indirect with the direct construction, as though the clause had begun with μηδὲν αἴρειν. It would be less natural to explain the infinitive as being here used for an imperative, or as an epexegetic infinitive—‘two coats apiece, to wear.’ See Winer, p. 397.
Verse 4
4. εἰς ἣν ἂν οἰκίαν εἰσέλθητε. After inquiring who were the worthiest people to receive them, Matthew 10:11, comp. infra Luke 10:5-8. This injunction was meant to exclude fastidious and restless changes. St Luke omits the injunction (Matthew 10:5)—which was only temporary (Matthew 28:19)—not to enter into Samaritan villages.
Verse 5
5. καὶ τὸν κονιορτόν. See Acts 13:51; Acts 18:6. The use of κονιορτὸς for κόνις is Hellenistic (LXX[200], Exodus 9:9, &c.). It properly means ‘a dustcloud,’ and occurs only in this phrase, except in Acts 22:23.
ἐπ' αὐτούς. ‘Against them’; stronger than the αὐτοῖς of Mark, for it points to future judgment.
Verse 6
6. διήρχοντο κατά. ‘They went in all directions, from village to village.’ The κατὰ is (like ἀνά) distributive.
εὐαγγελιζόμενοι. In Luke 9:2 we have κηρύσσειν, ‘to herald.’
θεραπεύοντες. In the other Evangelists exorcisms are prominent. Mark 6:13. The special object of the mission of the Twelve is plain from St Matthew. Our Lord had now been preaching for nearly a year in Galilee, and multitudes still thronged to Him. He knew that He would soon be compelled to retire, and He sent the Twelve to give one last opportunity to those who had heard Him.
Verse 7
7. Ἡρώδης. Antipas. See Luke 3:1.
τὰ γινόμενα πάντα. ‘All that was occurring.’ The words “by Him” of the Rec[201] are omitted by א BCDL. There seems to be a special reference to the work of the Twelve which made our Lord’s name more widely known.
ὑπό τινων. To this opinion Herod’s guilty conscience made him sometimes incline, Mark 6:16. His alarm may have been intensified by the strong condemnation of his subjects, who, long afterwards, looked on his defeat by his injured father-in-law Aretas (Hareth) as a punishment for this crime (Jos. Antt. XVIII. 5, §§ 1, 2).
Verses 7-9
7–9. HEROD’S ALARM
Verse 8
8. Ἡλίας. In accordance with the prophecy of Malachi 4:5. The verb ἐφάνη is used instead of ἠγέρθη, because of Elijah’s translation to heaven. The Talmud is full of the expected appearance of Elijah, and of instances in which he shewed himself to eminent Rabbis.
προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων. ‘Some prophet of those of old.’ Comp. Luke 7:16; Deuteronomy 18:15; Numbers 24:17. The Jews thought that Jeremiah or one of the other great prophets (see Luke 9:19) might rise to herald the Messiah, John 1:21. See 2 Esdras 2:10; 2 Esdras 2:18, “Tell my people … For thy help will I send my servants Isaiah and Jeremiah;” 1 Maccabees 14:41, “Simon should be high priest … until there arose a faithful prophet.” In 2 Maccabees 2:4-8; 2 Maccabees 15:13-16, Jeremiah appears in a vision. It was believed that he would reveal the hiding-place of the Ark, Urim, and Sacred Fire.
Verse 9
9. ἐγώ. The addition of the ἐγὼ shews that it is emphatic, ‘I beheaded John.’
ἐζήτει. Herod did not merely desire (A. V[202]) to see Him, but made attempts to do so. This agrees with Luke 23:8, “he was desirous to see him of a long season.” St Luke may have heard particulars about Herod from Chuzas (Luke 8:3) when he was with St Paul at Caesarea Stratonis, or from Manaen at Antioch (Acts 13:1). The curiosity of Herod about Jesus does not seem to have been aroused before this period. A half-alien tyrant such as Herod was, belonging to a detested house, is often little aware of what is going on among the people; but the mission of the Twelve in all directions, and therefore possibly to Tiberias, produced effects which reached his ears. His wish to see Jesus was not gratified till the day of the crucifixion;—partly because our Lord purposely kept out of his reach, feeling for him a pure contempt (“this fox,” Luke 13:32), and for this among other reasons never so much as entered the polluted and half-heathen streets of Herod’s new town of Tiberias (which partly covered the site of an old cemetery); and partly because, after the news of John’s murder, He seems at once to have withdrawn from all permanent work in Gennesareth. During the mission of the Twelve we infer that He made a journey alone to Jerusalem to the unnamed feast of John 5:1, probably the Feast of Purim. During this visit occurred the healing of the cripple at Bethesda.
Verse 10
10. διηγήσαντο αὐτῷ ὅσα ἐποίησαν. This brief and meagre record, to which nothing is added by the other Evangelists, contrasts so strongly with the joyous exultation of the Seventy over their success, that we are led to infer that the training of the Twelve was as yet imperfect, and their mission less successful than the subsequent one.
ὑπεχώρησεν κατ' ἰδίαν. The reasons—beside the natural need of the Twelve and of our Lord for rest—were [1] the incessant interruptions from the multitude, which left them no leisure even to eat (Mark 6:31), and [2] (as we see from the context) the news of the murder of John the Baptist and Herod’s inquiries about Jesus. Perhaps we may add [3] the desire to keep in retirement the Paschal Feast which He could not now keep at Jerusalem. This event constitutes another new departure in the ministry of Christ.
[εἰς τόπον ἔρημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδά.] There are here great variations in the MSS. and the best reading is εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά. The omission may be due to the fact that there was no “desert place” corresponding to this description near the only Bethsaida which was well-known to the copyists, viz. the little fishing suburb of Capernaum on the west of the lake (Bethsaida of Galilee, John 12:21), Mark 6:45. This may also explain the variation of ‘village’ for ‘city.’ It is only in recent times that we have been made familiar with the existence of the other Bethsaida—Bethsaida Julias (Mark 8:22), at the north of the lake, another ‘House of Fish’ which had been recently beautified by Herod Philip (Luke 3:1) and named by him after the beautiful but profligate daughter of Augustus (Jos. Antt. XVIII. 2, § 1; B. J. II. § 1). The ruins of this town still exist at Telui (a corruption of Tel Julias), and close by it is the green, narrow, secluded plain of El Batîhah, which exactly answers to the description of the Evangelists. This important discovery, which explains several serious difficulties of this Gospel, is due to Reland (Palaest. p. 504), and shews us how easily difficulties would be removed if we knew all the facts.
Verses 10-17
10–17. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
Verse 11
11. οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι. The ensuing incident is one of the few narrated by all four Evangelists, Matthew 14:13-33; Mark 6:30-52; John 6:1-21, and is most important from the power displayed, the doctrines symbolized (Christ the bread of life), and the results to which it led (John 6). Combining the narratives, we see that the embarkation of Jesus to sail from Capernaum to the northern Bethsaida had been noticed by the people, and as it is only a sail of six miles they went on foot round the head of the lake to find Him. He had barely time to retire with His disciples to one of the hills when a crowd assembled on the little plain. This crowd was momentarily swelled by the throngs of pilgrims who paused to see the Great Prophet on their way to the approaching Passover at Jerusalem (John 6:5), which Jesus Himself could not attend without danger, owing to the outburst caused by the Sabbath healing of the cripple (John 5:1-16). Towards afternoon He came down the hill to the multitude, to teach them and heal their sick.
ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτούς. ‘Kindly receiving them’—weary as He was and much as He yearned for solitude. See note on Luke 8:40.
Verse 12
12. κλίνειν. ‘To decline.’
οἱ δώδεκα. They were afraid that when once the brief twilight was over, the famished multitude might lose their way or come to harm, and some calamity happen which would give a fresh handle against Jesus. John alone tells us that He had compassionately suggested the difficulty to Philip, watching with gentle irony the trial of his faith; and that Philip despairingly said that it would cost more than 200 denarii (as we might say £20, i.e. the day’s wages of 200 people; see on Luke 7:41) to procure them even a minimum of food. Philip was “of Bethsaida,” but this had nothing to do with our Lord’s speaking to him, for he belonged to the western Bethsaida.
ἐπισιτισμόν. ‘A store of provision,’ as in Xen. Anab. VII. 1, § 9. It is a classic word, but an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N.T.
Verse 13
13. πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἄρτοι καὶ ἰχθύες δύο. The contraction is an anakoluthon, for εἰσίν refers to ἄρτοι, not to πλεῖον ἢ, which must be regarded as a sort of parenthetic addition. Compare Numbers 11:22. It was Andrew who first mentioned this fact in a tentative sort of way. The little boy (παιδάριον) who carried them seems to have been in attendance on the Apostles; evidently this was the food which they had brought for their own supply, and it proves their simplicity of life, for barley loaves (John 6:9) are the food of the poor (2 Kings 4:42; Judges 7:13; Ezekiel 4:9; Ezekiel 13:19).
εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς ἀγοράσωμεν. ‘Unless perchance we should ourselves go and procure.’ Εἰ with the subjunctive is very rare and archaic in Attic prose. It simply means ‘if, apart from all conditions.’ See my Brief Greek Syntax, § 201 n. In the N.T. it only occurs in 1 Corinthians 9:11, εἰ … θερίσωμεν, Luke 14:5, εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ. Here Winer regards it as a sort of deliberative subjunctive not really dependent on εἰ (‘unless—are we to go and buy?’).
Verse 14
14. πεντακισχίλιοι. “Besides women and children,” Matthew 14:21. These would probably not be numerous, and would not (in accordance with Eastern usage) sit down with the men, but would stand apart.
κλισίας ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα. ‘In companies about fifty each.’ The accusative is attributive, in apposition with the meaning of the verb, Winer, p. 286. The vivid details of Mark shew the eyewitness of St Peter. He compares them to parterres of flowers (πρασιαί πρασιαί, ‘by garden beds’) as they sat on the green grass in their bright Oriental robes of red and blue and yellow. St Luke’s word, κλισίας, means literally in dining-parties, from κλισία, ‘a couch.’ It therefore resembles the συμπόσια συμπόσια of St Mark. St Luke passes over the χόρτος πολύς (John), χλωρὸς χ. (Mk.), χόρτοι (Matt.). The details would be more striking to Jews. This systematic arrangement made it easy to tell the number of the multitude.
Verse 16
16. κατέκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου. The ‘brake’ is in the aorist and the ‘gave’ in the imperfect, and although it is a useless presumption to inquire into the mode of this most remarkable miracle, these two words give us this detail only,—that it took place between the act of breaking and the continuous distribution. But “Falleret momento visum … Est quod non erat; videtur quod non intelligitur” (Hilary). The marvel lay in the Doer, not in the deed. Aug.
Verse 17
17. κλασμάτων. Compare 2 Kings 4:43-44. These were collected by the order of Jesus, who thus strikingly taught that wastefulness even of miraculous plenty is entirely alien to the divine administration.
κόφινοι δώδεκα. Probably wicker-baskets (salsilloth, Jeremiah 6:9). Every Jew carried such a basket about with him to avoid the chance of his food contracting any Levitical pollution in heathen places (Juv. Sat. III. 14, VI. 542). The baskets used at the miracle of the four thousand were large rope-baskets, ‘frails’ (σπυρίδες). The accuracy with which each word is reserved for its own proper miracle by all the narrators is remarkable.
At this point there is a considerable gap in the continuity of St Luke’s narrative. He omits the amazement of the multitude which made it likely that they would seize Jesus to make Him king; His compelling His reluctant disciples to sail back towards the other—the western—Bethsaida; the gradual dismissal of the multitude; His flight (φεύγει, John 6:15, א ) to the hill top to escape those who still lingered, and to pray alone; the gathering of the storm; the walking on the sea; the failure of Peter’s faith; the very memorable discourse at Capernaum, intended to teach what was the true bread from heaven, and to dissipate the material expectations of the popular Messianism; the crisis of offence caused by these hard sayings; the dispute with the Pharisees on the question of the Oral Law or Tradition of the Elders; the deepening opposition and the one great day of conflict and rupture with the Pharisees (which St Luke appears to relate out of chronological order in 11); the flight among the heathen as far as Tyre and Sidon; the incident of the Syrophoenician woman; the feeding of the four thousand; the return to Galilee and demand for a sign; the sailing away; the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees; and the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida Julias during His second journey northwards. These must be sought for in Matthew 14:1 to Matthew 16:12; Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:30; John 6. For my view of them, and their sequence, I may perhaps be allowed to refer the reader to my Life of Christ, I. 403–II. 9.
Verse 18
18. κατὰ μόνας. ‘In private,’ as the context shews.
οἱ ὄχλοι. ‘The multitudes’; those whom Jesus had taught and healed and fed, or those who seem to have been always at no great distance. The two other Evangelists place this memorable scene in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi. His life at this epoch had come to resemble a continuous flight. He did not enter Caesarea Philippi. He always avoided towns (with the single exception of Jerusalem), probably from His love for the sights and sounds of nature, and His dislike for the crowded squalor and worldly absorption of town-communities; and He specially avoided these Hellenic and hybrid cities (Jos. Vit. 13), with their idolatrous ornaments and corrupted population. This event may well be regarded as the culminating point in His ministry. He had now won the deliberate faith and conviction of those who had lived in close intercourse with Him, and who, in continuation of His ministry, were to evangelize the world. See Matthew 16:13-21; Mark 8:27-31. The depth and sincerity of the confession was more strongly tested by the fact that it was made, not in the joyous spring of the Galilean ministry, but in the year of persecution which drove our Lord into semi-heathen districts.
εἶναι. “That I, the Son of man, am?” Matthew 16:13.
Verses 18-22
18–22. ST PETER’S CONFESSION. CHRIST PROPHESIES HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION
Verse 19
19. Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν. See on Luke 9:7-9. The answer of the Apostles shewed the sad truth that Jesus had come to His own possessions and His own people received Him not; that the Light had shined in the darkness, and the darkness had not comprehended it. He had not come to force belief, but to win conviction. He had never even openly proclaimed His Messiahship, but left His works to speak for Him. God’s method is not to ensure faith by violence; as the Fathers say, “Force is alien to God” (βία ἐχθρὸν Θεῷ).
ἄλλοι δέ. Some of the disciples told Jesus that the multitudes took Him for John the Baptist; others of them that they took Him for Elijah, &c.
Verse 20
20. τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. ‘The Anointed, the Messiah, of God.’ “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” Matthew 16:16. St Mark merely says “the Christ.” “The Lord’s Christ,” Luke 2:26. After the estranging speech at Capernaum our Lord had asked, “Will ye also go away?” and then St Peter’s answer had been ‘we have believed and recognised that thou art the Holy One of God,’ John 6:69 (א BCDL, &c.). Nathanael had recognised Him as “the Son of God” and “the King of Israel.” Later, Martha confessed Him as “the Christ, the Son of God,” John 11:27. But now for the first time the revealed mystery was openly recognised and confessed. St Luke omits the blessing of St Peter, which whatever may be its exact meaning, at any rate can have conferred on him no sort of primacy or superior authority among the Apostles. See Luke 22:24-26; Matthew 18:1; John 21:19-23; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:11, &c.
Verse 21
21. μηδενὶ λέγειν. For these perhaps among other reasons:—1. Because His work was not yet finished. 2. Because as yet their faith was very weak and their knowledge very partial. 3. Because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit to give power to their testimony. 4. Because the public proclamation of the truth would have precipitated the workings of God’s foreordained plan (πρόθεσις, Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:11). The Messianic errors and confusions of the day were so numerous that, as Riggenbach says, “Jesus was obliged at once to reveal and to veil Himself, to kindle and to cover the flame.”
Verse 22
22. πολλὰ παθεῖν. It was necessary at once to dissipate the crude Messianic conceptions of earthly splendour and victory in which they had been brought up, and to substitute the truth of a suffering for that of a triumphant Messiah.
ἀπό. ‘At the hand of,’ Luke 17:25; Winer, p. 464. The word ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι implies deliberate examination and rejection. Ἀπὸ in later Greek tends to displace ὑπό.
πρεσβυτέρων … ἀρχιερέων … γραμματέων. i.e. by each of the three great sections which formed the Jewish Sanhedrin; by all who up to that time had been looked upon as religious authorities in the nation.
ἀποκτανθῆναι. The Epic aorist ἐκτάθην becomes ἐκτάνθην in late Greek. The mode of death, and the delivery to the Gentiles, were culminating horrors which He mercifully kept back till the last journey to Jerusalem, Matthew 20:19. Hitherto He had only spoken of His death in dim and distant intimations, John 2:19; John 3:14; John 6:51. His revelation of it was progressive, as they were able to bear it. Matthew 9:15; Matthew 10:38; John 3:14; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:2.
ἐγερθῆναι. In Luke 9:45 St Luke shews us (as events proved) how entirely they failed to attach any distinct meaning to these words, Mark 9:10.
Verse 23
23. πρὸς πάντας. The word “all” implies the fact mentioned by St Mark (Mark 8:34), that before continuing His discourse He called up to Him the multitudes who were at a little distance. St Luke here omits the presumption and rebuke of St Peter, which is alone sufficient to dispose of the unworthy theory of some German theologians that he writes with an animus against St Peter, or with some desire to disparage his position.
τὸν σταυρόν. A dim intimation of the still unrevealed imminence of His crucifixion, and a continuance of the lesson that to follow Christ meant not earthly gain but entire self-sacrifice, Luke 14:26-27; Acts 14:22.
καθ' ἡμέραν. “For thy sake we are killed all the day long,” Romans 8:36. “I die daily,” 1 Corinthians 15:31. This addition is found only in St Luke.
Verses 23-27
23–27. THE CROSS AND THE KINGDOM
Verse 24
24. ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ κ.τ.λ. The words imply whosoever shall make it his main will to save his life. See by way of comment the fine fragment (probably) of a very early Christian hymn in 2 Timothy 2:11-12, and observe that ψυχὴ means the natural, animal life of which the main interests are in the earth. This rule of voluntary self-abnegation as the basis of the Christian life is so important that our Lord repeated it several times, Luke 17:33; Matthew 10:39; John 12:25.
Verse 25
25. κερδήσας τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κ.τ.λ. It was by the constant repetition of this verse that Ignatius Loyola won the life-long devotion of St Francis Xavier.
ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολέσας ἢ ζημιωθείς. ‘Destroy himself, and suffer loss.’
Verse 26
26. ἐπαισχυνθήσεται. Compare Luke 12:9; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 2:12. τοὺς ἐμούς (omitting λόγους), ‘my followers,’ is the reading of D, but the parallel passage, Mark 8:35, seems to shew that it is not correct.
Verse 27
27. ἀληθῶς. St Luke more generally has ἐπ' ἀληθείας, but see Luke 12:41, Luke 21:3.
αὐτοῦ. Here. See critical note. It is an adverb formed by a gen. of place like οὗ, ποῦ, &c. See note on Luke 5:19, Luke 19:4.
γεύσωνται θανάτου. In the Arabian poem, Antar, Death is represented as slaying men by handing them a cup of poison. This was a common Eastern metaphor.
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. St Mark (Mark 9:1) adds “coming in power.” St Matthew (Matthew 16:28) says, “till they see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom.” It is clear that the primary reference of these words was to the three Apostles who, within a week of that time, were to witness the Transfiguration. So it seems to be understood in 2 Peter 1:16, and by our Translators, who separate this verse to preface the narrative of the Transfiguration in Mark 9:1. The significance of the “kingdom” was therefore mainly spiritual, and the verse has an important bearing on the prophecies of the Second Advent (see Matthew 24:14-15; Matthew 24:30). It was again fulfilled at the Resurrection and Ascension; and in the person of one disciple—St John—it was fulfilled when he lived to witness the close of the Old Dispensation in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Verse 28
28. ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ. This is not a case of the schema Pindaricum where a singular verb (ἐγένετο) is attached to a plural substantive. The ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ is a sort of parenthetic clause without regular connexion. See Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13. This is merely the inclusive reckoning which St Luke saw in his written sources, and means exactly the same thing as “after six days” in Mark 9:2. (This explains Matthew 27:63.)
παραλαβών. The solemnity of this special choice is marked in the other Gospels by the additional word ἀναφέρει, “He leads them up” (cf. Luke 24:51). Matthew 26:37.
Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον. See Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51. The object of this occasion was to fill their souls with a vision which should support their faith amid the horrors which they afterwards witnessed.
εἰς τὸ ὄρος. ‘Into the mountain.’ The others say ‘into a lofty mountain.’ There can be little doubt that Mount Hermon (Jebel esh Sheikh) is intended, in spite of the persistent, but perfectly baseless tradition which points to Tabor. For (i) Mount Hermon is easily within six days’ reach of Caesarea Philippi, and (ii) could alone be called a “lofty mountain” (being 10,000 feet high) or “the mountain,” when the last scene had been at Caesarea. Further, (iii) Tabor at that time in all probability was (Jos. B. J. I. 8, § 7, Vit. 37), as from time immemorial it had been (Joshua 19:12), an inhabited and fortified place, wholly unsuited for a scene so solemn; and (iv) was moreover in Galilee, which is excluded by Mark 9:30. “The mountain” is indeed the meaning of the name “Hermon,” which being already consecrated by Hebrew poetry (Psalms 133:3, and under its old names of Sion and Sirion, or ‘breastplate,’ Deuteronomy 4:48; Deuteronomy 3:9; Song of Solomon 4:8), was well suited for the Transfiguration by its height, seclusion, and snowy splendour.
προσεύξασθαι. The characteristic addition of St Luke. That this awful scene took place at night, and therefore that He ascended the mountain in the evening, is clear from Luke 9:32-33 : comp. Luke 6:12. It is also implied by the allusions to the scene in 2 Peter 1:18-19.
Verses 28-36
28–36. THE TRANSFIGURATION
Verse 29
29. ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι. The inquiry whether this heavenly brightness came from within, or—as when the face of Moses shone—by reflection from communion with God, seems irreverent and idle; but we may say that the two things are practically one.
τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου. “His face did shine as the sun,” Matthew 17:2. It is interesting to see how St Luke avoids the word ‘He was metamorphosed’ which is used by the other Synoptists. He was writing for Greeks, in whose mythology that verb was vulgarised by foolish associations.
ἐξαστράπτων. Literally, ‘lightning forth,’ as though from some inward radiance. St Matthew compares the whiteness of His robes to the light (Luke 17:2), St Mark to the snow (Luke 9:3), and St Luke in this word to the lightning. See John 1:14; Psalms 104:2; Habakkuk 3:4.
Verse 30
30. ΄ωϋσῆς καὶ Ἡλίας. The great Lawgiver and the great Prophet, of whom we are told that God buried the one (Deuteronomy 34:6) and the other had passed to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:1; 2 Kings 2:11). The two were the chief representatives of the Old Dispensation. The former had prophesied of Christ (Acts 3:22; Deuteronomy 18:18); of the latter it had been prophesied that he should be His forerunner. “The end of the Law is Christ; Law and Prophecy are from the Word; and things which began from the Word, cease in the Word.” St Ambrose.
Verse 31
31. τὴν ἔξοδον. ‘Departure’—a very unusual word for death, which also occurs in this connexion in 2 Peter 1:15 (comp. exitus). The reading δόξαν, ‘glory,’ though known to St Chrysostom, is only supported by a few cursives. ἔξοδος is, as Bengel says, a very weighty word, involving His passion, cross, death, resurrection, and ascension. The same sense is found in Jos. Antt. IV. 8, § 2. See too Wisdom of Solomon 3:2, “their departure is taken for misery.” Id. Luke 7:6. Comp. εἴσοδος in Acts 13:24.
ἐν Ιερουσαλήμ. The murderers of the Prophets, Luke 13:33.
Verse 32
32. ἦσαν βεβαρημένοι ὕπνῳ· διαγρηγορήσαντες δέ. ‘Had been heavy with sleep; but on fully awaking.’ The word διαγρηγορήσαντες does not here mean ‘having kept awake,’ but (to give the full force of the compound and aorist) suddenly starting into full wakefulness. They started up, wide awake after heavy sleep, in the middle of the vision. For βεβαρημένοι comp. Matthew 26:43.
Verse 33
33. ἐν τῷ διαχωρίζεσθαι αὐτούς. As they ‘were parting.’
Ἐπιστάτα. Matt. Κύριε. Mk. Ῥαββί.
καλόν ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. It is an excellent thing, or ‘it is best’ (cf. Matthew 17:4; Matthew 26:24).
σκηνάς. Like the little wattled booths (succôth), which the Israelites made for themselves at the Feast of Tabernacles. The use of σκήνωμα in 2 Peter 1:13 (Matthew 17:4) is another sign that the mind of the writer was full of this scene.
μὴ εἰδώς. ‘Because he knew not.’ The subjective negative gives the reason for his words. Not knowing that the spectacle on Calvary was to be more transcendent and divine than that of Hermon; not knowing that the old was passing away and all things becoming new; not knowing that Jesus was not to die with Moses and Elijah on either side, but between two thieves.
Verse 34
34. νεφέλη. “A bright cloud,” Matthew 17:5. Possibly the Shekinah, or cloud of glory (see on Luke 1:35), which was the symbol of the Divine Presence (Exodus 33:9; 1 Kings 8:10). If a mere mountain cloud had been intended, there would have been no reason for their fear.
αὐτούς. This reading implies that the Apostles also were overshadowed by the cloud of glory. The less attested ἐκείνους of Rec[203] implies that it only overspread Jesus, and Moses, and Elias.
Verse 35
35. φωνή. 2 Peter 1:17-18. As in two other instances in our Lord’s ministry, Luke 3:22; John 12:28. The other Synoptists add that at this Voice they fell prostrate, and, on Jesus touching them, suddenly raised their eyes and looked all around them, to find no one there but Jesus.
ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος. ‘My chosen Son’ (א BL). Cf. Luke 23:35; Isaiah 42:1.
αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. The special importance of the words, as a Messianic confirmation, may be seen in Deuteronomy 18:15.
Verse 36
36. ἐσίγησαν. Until after the resurrection, in accordance with the express command of Jesus given them as they were descending the hill. Matthew 17:9. During the descent there also occurred the conversation about Elijah and John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:9-13; Mark 9:9-13.) It is remarkable that the only other allusion to the Transfiguration is in 2 Peter 1:18.
Verse 37
37. τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ. Proving that the Transfiguration took place at night: see on Luke 9:28.
ὄχλος πολύς. St Mark records their “amazement” at seeing Him—perhaps due to some lingering radiance and majesty which clung to Him after the Transfiguration. (Comp. Exodus 34:30.) They had been surrounding a group of the scribes, who were taunting the disciples with their failure to cure the lunatic boy.
Verses 37-48
37–48. THE DEMONIAC BOY. THE LESSON OF MEEKNESS
Verse 38
38. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου. ‘From the crowd.’
Διδάσκαλε. ‘Teacher’ or ‘Rabbi.’
ἐπιβλέψαι. See critical note. It is 1st aor. infin., not imperat. middle. The middle of the verb does not occur.
μονογενής μοι ἐστίν. See on Luke 8:42.
Verse 39
39. πνεῦμα λαμβάνει αὐτόν. This was the supernatural aspect of his deafness, epilepsy, and madness. St Matthew gives the natural aspect when he says, “he is a lunatic, and sore vexed, &c.” Luke 17:15.
Verse 40
40. οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν. Jesus afterwards, at their request, told them the reason of this, which was their deficient faith. Matthew 17:19-21.
Verse 41
41. Ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος κ.τ.λ. Doubtless the Spirit of Jesus was wrung by the contrast—so immortally portrayed in the great picture of Raphael—between the peace and glory which He had left on the mountain, and this scene of weak faith, abject misery, and bitter opposition—faltering disciples, degraded sufferers, and wrangling scribes. For διεστραμμένη see Acts 20:30; Philippians 2:15.
ἕως πότε ἔσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. “He was hastening to His Father, yet could not go till He had led His disciples to faith. Their slowness troubled Him.” Bengel.
Verse 42
42. ἐπετίμησεν κ.τ.λ. See the fuller details and the memorable cry of the poor father in Mark 9:21-24. The child had been rendered deaf and dumb by his possession; in the last paroxysm he wallowed on the ground foaming, and then lay as dead till Jesus raised him by the hand. Interesting parallels to these strange and horrible paroxysms in a condition which may well be ascribed to demoniac possession may be found in a paper on Demoniacs by Mr Caldwell, Contemp. Rev., Feb. 1876. The boy’s ‘possession’ seems on its natural side to have been the deadliest and intensest form of epileptic lunacy which our Lord had ever healed, and one far beyond the power of the real or pretended Jewish exorcisms. Hence the words of Jesus were peculiarly emphatic, Mark 9:25.
Verse 43
43. τῇ μεγαλειότητι. ‘Majesty.’ 2 Peter 1:16. Vulg[204] ‘magnitudine.’
θαυμαζόντων. The power of the last miracle had rekindled some of their Messianic enthusiasm. Jesus had now reached the northern limits of Palestine, and—apparently through bypaths, and with the utmost secrecy—was retracing His steps, perhaps along the western bank of the Jordan, to Galilee, Matthew 17:22; Mark 9:30.
εἶπεν. The imperfects in Mark 9:31 shew that these warnings of His approaching betrayal, death, and resurrection now formed a constant topic of His teaching.
Verse 44
44. μέλλει παραδίδοσθαι. ‘Is about to be delivered’ (i.e. very soon).
Verse 45
45. ἠγνόουν. This permanent ignorance and incapacity, so humbly avowed, should be contrasted with the boldness and fulness of their subsequent knowledge. It furnishes one of the strongest proofs of the change wrought in them by the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit.
παρακεκαλυμμένον. ‘Veiled over.’ It was not yet for them revealed, i.e. seen with the veil removed. The word is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in N. T.
ἵνα μὴ αἴσθωνται αὐτό. Not as in the A. V[205] ‘that they perceived it not,’ but as in the R. V[206] ‘that they should not perceive it.’ The ἵνα represents the divine purpose.
Verse 46
46. διαλογισμός. ‘A dispute.’
τό. The article is inapposition to the whole question. Comp. Mark 9:43.
τίς ἂν εἴη μείζων αὐτῶν. ‘Who of them should be the greatest’ (comp. Luke 9:48) not as Weiss takes it, ‘Who should be greater than they.’ Their jealous ambition had been kindled partly by false Messianic hopes, partly perhaps by the recent distinction bestowed on Peter, James, and John. Observe how little Christ’s words to Peter had been understood to confer on him any special preeminence! This unseemly dispute was again stirred up at the Last Supper, Luke 22:24-26. Godet sees in Matthew 18:15-22 an indication that very bitter feelings had arisen on this occasion.
Verse 47
47. εἰδώς. He asked the subject of their dispute, and when shame kept them silent, He sat down, and calling a little child, made the Twelve stand around while He taught this solemn lesson.
παιδίου. This could not have been the future martyr St Ignatius, as legend says (Niceph. II. 3), probably by an erroneous inference from his name of Christophoros or Theophoros, which was derived from his telling Trajan that he carried God in his heart (see Ep. ad Smyrn. III. which is of very doubtful genuineness, and Eus. H. E. III. 38).
Verse 48
48. ὁ γὰρ μικρότερος ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχων. ‘He whose position is least among you all.’ Comp. Matthew 23:11-12. He perhaps added the memorable words about offending His little ones. Matthew 18:6-10; Luke 17:2.
οὗτός ἐστιν μέγας. ‘He (emphatic) is great’ (א ABCLX), not ‘shall be’ but is.
Verse 49
49. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης εἶπεν. Mark 9:38-41. This sudden question seems to have been suggested by the words ‘in my name,’ which Jesus had just used.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια. It was common among the Jews to attempt exorcism by many different methods; see on Luke 4:35; Luke 4:41; Luke 8:32. This unknown person—like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-14, but evidently in a more faithful spirit—had found that the name of Jesus was more powerful. Specimens of Jewish exorcisms are given in the Jewish Book of Jubilees, and in Shabbath, 67; Pesachim, f. 112 a, b; see too Tobit 6:16-17; Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3.
ἐκωλύσαμεν αὐτόν. The other reading ἐκωλύομεν might mean ‘we tried to prevent him.’ Compare the jealous zeal of Joshua against Eldad and Medad, and the truly noble answer of Moses, Numbers 11:27-29.
ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ' ἡμῶν. This touch of intolerant zeal is quite in accordance with the natural disposition which shews itself in the incident of Luke 9:54; and with the legend that St John rushed out of a bath in which he saw the heretic Cerinthus. It was this burning temperament that made him a “Son of Thunder.” The μετὰ is redundant, but like σὺν is often used even in classic writers with verbs of following, just as in Latin we find comitari cum in inscriptions. Every synthetic language tends to become analytic, as the delicacy of its inflexions is obliterated by use. Ἀκολουθεῖν ὀπίσω is a Hebraism. Matthew 10:38.
Verse 49-50
49–50. THE TOLERANCE OF JESUS
Verse 50
50. μὴ κωλύετε. The present-imperfect tense, ‘Do not be for hindering him.’
ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν καθ' ὑμῶν, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐστίν. Cf. Philippians 1:18. The complementary but not contradictory truth to this is, “He who is not with me is against me,” Matthew 12:30. Both are true in different circumstances. Neutrality is sometimes as deadly as opposition (Judges 5:23); it is sometimes as effectual as aid (Sueton. Jul. Caes. 75). See Vinet, La tolérance et l’intolérance de l’Evangile (Discours, p. 268). Renan calls these “two irreconcilable rules of proselytism, and a contradiction evoked by a passionate struggle.” Guizot expresses his astonishment at so frivolous a criticism, and calls them two contrasted facts which everyone must have noticed in the course of an active life. “Les deux assertions, loin de se contredire, peuvent être également vraies, et Jésus-Christ en les exprimant a parlé en observateur sagace, non en moraliste qui donne les préceptes.” Méditations, p. 229.
It is a great pity that the chapter does not end at this verse; since it closes another great section in our Lord’s ministry—the epoch of opposition and flight. A new phase of the ministry begins at Luke 9:51.
Verse 51
51. (ἐγένετο δὲ) ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ. ‘When the days of His Assumption were drawing near’ (literally, were being fulfilled). It is not (as Meyer takes it) ‘were completed,’ which would be πλησθῆναι as in Luke 2:21. Comp. Acts 2:1. Wyclif, “Whilst the days were accomplishing.” St Luke thus clearly marks the arrival of a final stage of our Lord’s ministry. “His passion, cross, death, and grave were coming on, but through them all Jesus looked to the goal, and the style of the Evangelist imitates His feelings,” Bengel. The word ἀνάληψις means the Ascension (in Eccl. Latin, Assumptio). So ἀνελήφθη of Elijah and of our Lord, 2 Kings 2:11; Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2; Acts 1:11, &c.; 1 Timothy 3:16. The subst. is in the N. T. an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in this sense, but is found in Testam. XII. Patr. The peculiarity of the expressions seems to point to the solemnity of the crisis, comp. Mark 10:32.
καὶ αὐτός. ‘He Himself also.’
τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐστήρισεν. Jeremiah 21:10; 2 Kings 12:17 (LXX[207]), and especially Isaiah 1:7. The phrase shews that St Luke is using an Aramaic document (Exodus 33:14).
Verses 51-56
Luke 9:51-56. REJECTED BY THE SAMARITANS. A LESSON OF TOLERANCE
Verses 51-62
CHAPS. Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:31
This section forms a great episode in St Luke, which may be called the departure for the final conflict, and is identical with the journey (probably to the Feast of the Dedication, John 10:22) which is partially touched upon in Matthew 18:1 to Matthew 20:16 and Mark 10:1-31. It contains many incidents recorded by this Evangelist alone, and though the recorded identifications of time and place are vague, yet they all point (Luke 9:51, Luke 13:22, Luke 17:11, Luke 10:38) to a slow, solemn, and public progress from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the events themselves are often grouped by subjective considerations. So little certain is the order of the separate incidents, that one writer (Rev. W. Stewart) has made an ingenious attempt to shew that it is determined by the alphabetic arrangement of the leading Greek verbs (ἀγαπᾶν, Luke 10:25-42; αἰτεῖν, Luke 11:1-5; Luke 11:8-13, &c.). Canon Westcott arranges the order thus: The Rejection of the Jews foreshewn; Preparation, Luke 9:43 to Luke 11:13; Lessons of Warning, Luke 11:14 to Luke 13:9; Lessons of Progress, Luke 13:10 to Luke 14:24; Lessons of Discipleship, Luke 14:25 to Luke 17:10; the Coming End, Luke 17:10 to Luke 18:30.
The order of events after ‘the Galilaean spring’ of our Lord’s ministry on the plain of Gennesareth seems to have been this: After the period of flight among the heathen or in countries which were only semi-Jewish, of which almost the sole recorded incident is the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15:21-28) He returned to Peraea and fed the four thousand. He then sailed back to Gennesareth, but left it in deep sorrow on being met by the Pharisees with insolent demands for a sign from heaven. Turning His back once more on Galilee, He again travelled northwards; healed a blind man at Bethsaida Julias; received St Peter’s great confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi; was transfigured; healed the demoniac boy; rebuked the ambition of the disciples by the example of the little child; returned for a brief rest in Capernaum, during which occurred the incident of the Temple Tax; then journeyed to the Feast of Tabernacles, in the course of which journey occurred the incidents so fully narrated by St John (John 7:1 to John 10:21). The events and teachings in this great section of St Luke seem to belong mainly, if not entirely, to the two months between the hasty return of Jesus to Galilee and His arrival in Jerusalem, two months afterwards, at the Feast of Dedication;—a period respecting which St Luke must have had access to special sources of information.
For fuller discussion of the question I must refer to my Life of Christ, II. 89–150.
Verse 52
52. ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους. Some think that they were two of the Seventy disciples; others that they were James and John.
εἰς κώμην Σαμαριτῶν. On the way to Judaea from Galilee He would doubtless avoid Nazareth, and therefore His road probably lay over Mount Tabor, past little Hermon (see Luke 7:11), past Nain, En-dor, and Shunem. The first Samaritan village at which He would arrive would be En Gannîm (Fountain of Gardens), now Jenîn (2 Kings 9:27), a pleasant village at the first pass into the Samaritan hills. The inhabitants are still described as “fanatical, rude, and rebellious” (Thomson, Land and Book, II. XXX.). The Samaritans are not mentioned in St Mark, and only once in St Matthew (Matthew 10:5).
ὥστε ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ. The ὥστε is one of the many analytic expressions (being here intended to help out the force of the infinitive) which mark the decadence of language. ὥστε gradually acquires some of the final (telic) force which ἵνα loses. As He was now accompanied not only by the Twelve, but by a numerous multitude of followers, His unannounced arrival would have caused embarrassment. But, further than this, He now openly avowed Himself as the Christ.
Verse 53
53. οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτόν. The aorist implies that they at once rejected Him. The Samaritans had shewn themselves heretofore not ill-disposed (John 4:39), and St Luke himself delights to record favourable notices of them (Luke 10:33, Luke 17:18). But (i) there was always a recrudescence of hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans at the recurrence of the annual feasts. (ii) Their national jealousy would not allow them to receive a Messiah whose goal was not Gerizim, but Jerusalem. (iii) They would not sanction the passage of a multitude of Jews through their territory, since the Jews frequently (though not always, Jos. Antt. xx. 6, § 1) chose the other route on the East of the Jordan.
τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον. This again is a strange Hebraic form of expression, taken from the LXX[208], 2 Samuel 17:11.
εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. This national hatred between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:9) still continues, and at the present day it is mainly due to the fanaticism of the Jews. In our Lord’s day the Jews called the Samaritans ‘Cuthites’ (2 Kings 17:24), aliens (Luke 17:18), ‘that foolish people that dwell in Sichem’ (Sirach 50:25-26), and other opprobrious names. They accused them of continuous idolatry (2 Kings 17), and charged them with false fire-signals, and with having polluted the Temple by scattering it with dead men’s bones (Jos. Antt. XX. 6, § 1, XVIII. 2, § 2; B. J. II. 12, § 3). No doubt originally their Monotheism was very hybrid, being mixed up with five heathen religions (2 Kings 17:33; 2 Kings 19:37); but they had gradually laid aside idolatry, and it was as much a calumny of the ancient Jews to charge them with the worship of Rachel’s amulets (Genesis 35:4) as for modern Jews to call them ‘worshippers of the pigeon’ (Frankl. Jews in the East, II. 334). But the deadly exacerbation between the two nations, which began after the Exile (Ezra 4:1-10; Nehemiah 4:1-16; Nehemiah 4:6), had gone on increasing by perpetual collision since the building of the Temple on Gerizim by Sanballat and the renegade priest Manasseh (Nehemiah 13:28; Jos. Antt. XI. 7, XII. 5, § 5), which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus B.C. 129.
Verse 54
54. Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης. “What wonder that the Sons of Thunder wished to flash lightning?” St Ambrose. But one of these very disciples afterwards went to Samaria on a message of love (Acts 8:14-25).
θέλεις εἴπωμεν; This is really a deliberative subjunctive, and it is frequently used after words like θέλεις and βούλει. Comp. Luke 6:42, Luke 22:9. Winer, p. 356.
πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. To avenge their helplessness under this gross and open insult of the Messiah. “Christ wrought miracles in every element except fire. Fire is reserved for the consummation of the age.” Bengel.
[ὡς καὶ Ἠλίας ἐποίησεν.] These words are omitted by א BL. But (i) they are singularly appropriate, since the incident referred to also occurred in Samaria (2 Kings 1:5-14); and (ii) while it would be difficult to account for their insertion, it is quite easy to account for their omission either by an accidental error of the copyists, or on dogmatic grounds, especially from the use made of this passage by the heretic Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc. IV. 23) to disparage the Old Testament. (iii) They are found in very ancient MSS., versions, and Fathers. (iv) The words seem to be absolutely required to defend the crude spirit of vengeance, and might have seemed all the more natural to the still half-trained Apostles because they had so recently seen Moses and Elias speaking with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They needed, as it were, a Scriptural precedent, to conceal from themselves the personal impulse which really actuated them. It is curious to trace the way in which this passage has been tampered with by copyists.
Verse 55
55. [οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς.] ‘Ye know not of what spirit ye are, Ye.’ This does not mean, ‘Ye know not how unlike your spirit is to that of Elias;’ but ‘your spirit is that of Elias, and is not now commendable.’ Βία ἐχθρὸν θεῷ. The whole of this passage down to “save them” is omitted in א ABC, and other manuscripts; but it is impossible to doubt its genuineness, because it breathes a spirit far purer, loftier, and rarer than is ever discernible in ecclesiastical interpolations. It was omitted on the same grounds as the words in the last verse, because it was regarded as ‘dangerous’ to the authority of the O. T. It is quite impossible to believe that the narrative abruptly ended with the unexplained, “He rebuked them.” Ecclesiastical censurers have failed to see that “religionis non est religionem cogere” (Tert. ad Scap. 2), and that, as Bp. Andrewes says, “The times require sometimes one spirit, sometimes another, Elias’ time Elias’ spirit.” The Apostles learnt these truths better when they had received the Holy Ghost (Romans 12:19; James 1:19-20; James 3:16-17; John 3:17; John 12:47). They learnt that the spirit of Jesus was the spirit of the dove; and that there is a difference between Carmel and Hermon, between Sinai and Kurn Hattîn. It is possible that the words may be a question—Know ye not that yours (emphatically placed last) is the spirit of Elijah, not of Christ? Our Lord quoted Psalms 22, 31 on the Cross, and yet prayed for His enemies. Bengel.
Verse 56
56. [ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς … σῶσαι.] This clause is omitted by the majority of uncials, and some editors therefore regard it as a repetition of Luke 19:10 or Matthew 18:11. However that may be, we have the same sentiment in John 3:17; John 12:47; 1 Timothy 1:15. The Sons of Thunder were shewing the spirit of the Talmud (which says, “Let not the Samaritans have part in the Resurrection”) rather than that of the Gospel (Luke 10:33, Luke 17:18; Acts 1:8).
ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην. They abandoned their original plan and itinerary, and ‘went into a different village.’ The word ἑτέραν (not ἄλλην) perhaps implies that it was a Jewish, not a Samaritan village. Numbers 20:21; Matthew 2:12.
Verse 57
57. πορευομένων αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. St Matthew (Matthew 8:19-22) places these incidents before the embarkation for Gergesa. Lange’s conjecture that the three aspirants were Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew is singularly baseless.
τις. A Scribe (Matthew 8:19). The dignity of his rank was nothing to Him who had chosen among His Twelve a zealot and a publican.
ὅπου ἂν ἀπέρχῃ. There was too little of ‘the modesty of fearful duty’ in the Scribe’s professions.
Verses 57-62
57–62. THE THREE ASPIRANTS
Verse 58
58. εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. “In the man’s flaring enthusiasm He saw the smoke of egotistical self-deceit” (Lange), and therefore He coldly checked a proffered devotion which would not have stood the test.
φωλεούς. A late and not very common word.
κατασκηνώσεις. ‘Habitations, shelters.’ Birds do not live in nests. In this verse more than in any other we see the poverty and homelessness of the latter part of the Lord’s ministry (2 Corinthians 8:9). Perhaps St Luke placed the incident here as appropriate to the rejection of our Lord’s wish to rest for the night at En Gannim. Was this Scribe prepared to follow Jesus for His own sake alone?
Verse 59
59. ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθόντι θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. An ancient, but groundless tradition (Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 4, § 25), says that this was Philip. This man was already a disciple (Matthew 8:21). The request could hardly mean ‘let me live at home till my father’s death,’ which would be too indefinite an offer; nor can it well mean that his father was lying unburied, for in that case the disciple would hardly have been among the crowd. Perhaps it meant ‘let me go and give a farewell funeral feast, and put everything in order.’ The man was bidden to be Christ’s Nazarite (Numbers 6:6-7).
Verse 60
60. ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς. ‘Leave the dead to,’ &c. Vulg[209] dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos, i.e. let the spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1; John 5:24-25) bury their physically dead. “Amandus est generator, sed praeponendus est Creator,” Aug. The general lesson is that of Luke 14:26.
διάγγελλε. ‘Publish abroad.’ Vulg[210] annuntia. Here alone in this connexion.
Verse 61
61. πρῶτον δὲ ἐπίτρεψόν μοι ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς, κ.τ.λ. The incident and the allusion closely resemble the call of Elisha (1 Kings 19:20). But the call of Jesus is more pressing and momentous than that of Elijah. “The East is calling thee, thou art looking to the West,” Aug. Neither Elijah nor Elisha is an adequate example for the duties of the Kingdom of Heaven, of which the least partaker is, in knowledge and in privileges, greater than they.
ἀποτάξασθαι. Vulg[211] renuntiari is used in this sense in Luke 14:33; Acts 18:18; Acts 18:21; 2 Corinthians 2:13; Mark 6:46.
εἰς τὸν οἶκον. ‘Let me go to my house, and there bid farewell.’ This mixture of two constructions is a common form of breviloquentia. See Luke 11:7. The type of this idiom is Φίλιππος εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον, Acts 8:40. See Winer, p. 516, and my Brief Greek Syntax, § 89.
Verse 62
62. οὐδεὶς ἐπιβαλὼν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπ' ἄροτρον. He who would make straight furrows must not look about him (Hesiod, Works and Days, II. 60). The light ploughs of the East, easily overturned, require constant attention.
εὔθετος. ‘Well-adapted.’ By way of comment see Luke 17:32; Psalms 78:9; Hebrews 10:38-39. The general lesson of the section is, Give yourself wholly to your duty, and count the cost, Luke 14:25-33. Christ cannot accept ‘a conditional service.’ Neither hardship, nor bereavement, nor home ties must delay us from following Him. Is it more than a curious accident that the last four incidents illustrate the peculiarities of the four marked human temperaments—the Choleric (51–56); the Sanguine (57, 58); the Melancholic (59, 60); the Phlegmatic (61, 62)?
10 Chapter 10
Verse 1
1. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα, i.e. after finally leaving Galilee, and starting on His great Peraean progress.
ἀνέδειξεν. ‘He appointed.’ Comp. ἀνάδειξις in Luke 1:80 and ἀνάδειξον in Acts 1:24.
καὶ ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα. ‘Also others’ (besides the Twelve) ‘seventy in number.’ (Comp. ἕτεροι δύο, Luke 23:32.) Some MSS. read seventy-two (BDM, &c.). The number had evident reference to the Elders of Moses (Numbers 11:16), where there is the same variation; the numbers of the Sanhedrin; and the Jewish belief (derived from Genesis 10) as to the number of the nations of the world. It is true that no special allusion is here made to the Gentiles. The references to Elim with its 12 wells and 70 palm-trees are mere plays of allegoric fancy. Doubtless, as Ewald says, many of these 70 may have been among the 120 of Acts 1:15.
ἀνὰ δύο. The same merciful provision that we see in the brother-pairs of the Twelve.
εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν, &c. Clearly with the same object as in Luke 9:52. It may have been all the more necessary because hitherto He had worked less in the Transjordanic regions.
οὗ. In grammatical strictness we should have had οἷ, ‘whither,’ but the use of adverbs of rest with verbs of motion is very common. Comp. ποῦ and ἐκεῖ, in Luke 12:17-18.
ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι. He intended to come in person.
Verses 1-24
Luke 10:1-24. THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTY
Verses 1-42
CHAPS. Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:31
This section forms a great episode in St Luke, which may be called the departure for the final conflict, and is identical with the journey (probably to the Feast of the Dedication, John 10:22) which is partially touched upon in Matthew 18:1 to Matthew 20:16 and Mark 10:1-31. It contains many incidents recorded by this Evangelist alone, and though the recorded identifications of time and place are vague, yet they all point (Luke 9:51, Luke 13:22, Luke 17:11, Luke 10:38) to a slow, solemn, and public progress from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the events themselves are often grouped by subjective considerations. So little certain is the order of the separate incidents, that one writer (Rev. W. Stewart) has made an ingenious attempt to shew that it is determined by the alphabetic arrangement of the leading Greek verbs (ἀγαπᾶν, Luke 10:25-42; αἰτεῖν, Luke 11:1-5; Luke 11:8-13, &c.). Canon Westcott arranges the order thus: The Rejection of the Jews foreshewn; Preparation, Luke 9:43 to Luke 11:13; Lessons of Warning, Luke 11:14 to Luke 13:9; Lessons of Progress, Luke 13:10 to Luke 14:24; Lessons of Discipleship, Luke 14:25 to Luke 17:10; the Coming End, Luke 17:10 to Luke 18:30.
The order of events after ‘the Galilaean spring’ of our Lord’s ministry on the plain of Gennesareth seems to have been this: After the period of flight among the heathen or in countries which were only semi-Jewish, of which almost the sole recorded incident is the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15:21-28) He returned to Peraea and fed the four thousand. He then sailed back to Gennesareth, but left it in deep sorrow on being met by the Pharisees with insolent demands for a sign from heaven. Turning His back once more on Galilee, He again travelled northwards; healed a blind man at Bethsaida Julias; received St Peter’s great confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi; was transfigured; healed the demoniac boy; rebuked the ambition of the disciples by the example of the little child; returned for a brief rest in Capernaum, during which occurred the incident of the Temple Tax; then journeyed to the Feast of Tabernacles, in the course of which journey occurred the incidents so fully narrated by St John (John 7:1 to John 10:21). The events and teachings in this great section of St Luke seem to belong mainly, if not entirely, to the two months between the hasty return of Jesus to Galilee and His arrival in Jerusalem, two months afterwards, at the Feast of Dedication;—a period respecting which St Luke must have had access to special sources of information.
For fuller discussion of the question I must refer to my Life of Christ, II. 89–150.
Verse 2
2. ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς. Compare Matthew 9:37; John 4:35.
ἐκβάλῃ. The word literally means ‘drive forth,’ and though it has lost its full force implies urgency and haste. See similar uses of the word in John 10:4, Matthew 9:38, Mark 1:12.
Verse 3
3. ὑπάγετε. For this word, which occurs frequently in the other Synoptists, St Luke generally substitutes the more classical πορεύεσθαι.
ὡς ἄρνας. Comp. ‘As sheep,’ Matthew 10:16 (of the Twelve). The slight variation must not be pressed as though it meant that the 12 were τελειοτέρους (Euthym.). The impression meant to be conveyed is merely that of simplicity and defencelessness. A tradition, as old as Clemens Romanus, tells us that St Peter had asked (on the previous occasion), ‘But how then if the wolves should tear the lambs?’ and that Jesus replied, ‘Let not the lambs fear the wolves when the lambs are once dead,’ and added the words in Matthew 10:28. There is no reason to doubt this interesting tradition, which may rank as one of the most certain of the ‘unwritten sayings’ (ἄγραφα δόγματα) of our Lord.
Verse 4
4. μὴ … βαλλάντιον. Compare Luke 9:1-6, and notes; Matthew 10:1-42. The double λ is best supported by the MSS. though λ is more correct. St Luke alone uses this word (Luke 12:33; Luke 22:35-36). St Mark the Oriental ζώνην, ‘girdle.’
μὴ ὑποδήματα. The verb βαστάζετε shews the meaning to be that they were not to carry a second pair of sandals.
μηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπάσησθε. A common direction in cases of urgency (2 Kings 4:29), and partly explicable by the length and loitering elaborateness of Eastern greetings (Thomson, Land and Book, II. 24).
Verse 5
5. εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ. Adopted in our service for the Visitation of the Sick. God’s messengers should begin first with prayers for peace, not with objurgations. Bengel.
Verse 6
6. υἱὸς εἰρήνης. ‘A son of peace,’ i.e. a man of peaceful heart. Comp. for the phrase Luke 16:8, Luke 20:36; John 17:12; Ephesians 5:6; Ephesians 5:8. υἱὸς ὀργῆς, Ephesians 2:3. γεέννης, Matthew 23:15. It is a Hebraism. Acts 4:36.
ἐπαναπαύσεται. The reading of א B is ἐπαναπαήσεται. The meaning is the same and the form is a possible one, since the 2nd aor. pass. in Chobotem is ἐπάην. Comp. Revelation 14:13 (AG, La[222] &c.).
ἐφ' ὑμὰς ἀνακάμψει. Matthew 10:13. “My prayer returned into mine own bosom,” Psalms 35:13.
Verse 7
7. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ οἰκίᾳ. Not ‘in the same house’ as in A. V[223] (which would require ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ) but ‘in this house.’ St Luke however is fond of the collocation αὐτῇ τῇ for the ἐκείνῃ τῇ of the other Evangelists. The perf. means that the kingdom ‘has drawn near,’ and therefore ‘is near.’
ἔσθοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν. As a plain right. 1 Corinthians 9:4; 1 Corinthians 9:7-11. τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν means ‘the things from them,’ i.e. what they give.
ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. Referred to by St Paul, 1 Timothy 5:18. Doubtless he may have been aware that our Lord had used it, but the saying was probably proverbial.
Verse 9
9. ἤγγικεν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. So that our Lord’s last messages resembled His first preaching, Matthew 4:17.
Verse 11
11. καὶ τὸν κονιορτόν. Acts 13:49-51; Acts 18:5-7.
πλήν. In late Greek πλὴν (in the sense of caeterum ‘only, nevertheless,’) is often followed immediately by a finite verb. This construction is rare and chiefly poetic in classical Greek.
Verse 12
12. Σοδόμοις ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀνεκτότερον. The words ‘in that day’ are left vague. They may refer primarily to approaching national judgments; ultimately to the Great Day. By the punishment of the city we must of course understand the punishment of its inhabitants. The great principle which explains these words may be found in Luke 12:47-48 (compare Hebrews 2:2-3; Hebrews 10:28-29).
Verse 13
13. οὐαί σοι Χοραζείν. The mention of this town is very interesting because this is the only occasion (Matthew 11:21) on which the name occurs, and we are thus furnished with a very striking proof of the fragmentariness of the Gospels. The very site of Chorazin was long unknown. It has now been discovered at Keraseh, the ruins of an old town on a wady, two miles inland from Tel Hum (Capernaum). At a little distance these ruins look like mere rude heaps of basaltic stones. Etiam periere ruinae.
Βηθσαϊδά. See on Luke 9:10.
αἱ δυνάμεις. Literally, ‘the powers.’
πάλαι ἂν … μετενόησαν. Like Nineveh (Jonah 3:5-10), “Surely had I sent thee unto them they would have hearkened unto thee,” Ezekiel 3:6; comp. James 4:17.
καθήμενοι. This is a constructio ad sensum. The participle does not agree with the fem. name of the towns but refers to their inhabitants.
Verse 14
14. ἀνεκτότερον … ἐν τῇ κρίσει. A very important verse as proving the ‘intermediate state’ (Hades) of human souls. The guilty inhabitants of these cities had received their temporal punishment (Genesis 19:24-25); but the final judgment was yet to come.
Verse 15
15. καὶ σὺ Καφαρναούμ. Christ’s “own city.”
μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; Shalt thou be exalted by inestimable spiritual privileges? “Admitted into a holier sanctuary, they were guilty of a deeper sacrilege.” A better reading (for ἡ … ὑψωθεῖσα) is μὴ ὑψωθήσῃ; “Shalt thou be exalted to heaven? Thou shalt be thrust down …!” It must however be admitted that μὴ may have originated by homoeteleuton from the final μ of Capernaum.
ἕως ᾅδου καταβιβασθήσῃ. Thou shalt be thrust down as far as Hades. The curse must be understood in a general and national sense. The bright little town on the hill by the lake with its marble synagogues doubtless expected to be the prosperous capital of Galilee. Its fate was far different. When our Lord uttered this woe these cities on the shores of Gennesareth were populous and prospering; now they are desolate heaps of ruins in a miserable land. The inhabitants who lived thirty years longer may have recalled these woes in the unspeakable horrors of slaughter and conflagration which the Romans then inflicted on them. It is immediately after the celebrated description of the loveliness of the Plain of Gennesareth that Josephus goes on to tell of the shore strewn with wrecks and putrescent bodies, “insomuch that the misery was not only an object of commiseration to the Jews, but even to those that hated them and had been the authors of that misery,” Jos. B.J. III. 10, § 8. For fuller details see my Life of Christ, II. 101 sq.
Verse 16
16. ἀθετεῖ. Literally, “setting at nought.” For comment on the verse see 1 Thessalonians 4:8; Matthew 18:5; John 12:44.
Verse 17
17. ὑπέστρεψαν … μετὰ χαρᾶς. The success of their mission is more fully recorded than that of the Twelve.
καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια. ‘Even the demons.’ Plura in effectu experti sunt quam Jesus expresserat. Bengel. They had been bidden (Luke 10:9) to “heal the sick;” but these are the only healings that they mention.
ὑποτάσσεται. ‘Are being subjected.’
Verse 18
18. ἐθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. ‘I was observing Satan as lightning fallen from heaven,’ Isaiah 14:9-15. We find similar thoughts in John 16:11; John 12:31, “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out;” 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14. πεσόντα, not cadentem but lapsum. The metaphor is a picturesque one, and the mixture of the imperfect (ἐθεώρουν) with the aorist (πεσόντα) seems to imply the two thoughts that Christ watched—followed with His gaze—Satan’s fall from the zenith, and saw him lying where he had fallen. The fall implies the conception of Satan as “prince of the power of the air” (τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις). Comp. Revelation 12:9; Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 6:12.
Verse 19
19. δέδωκα. ‘I have given,’ with א BCL, &c.
τὴν ἐξουσίαν. ‘The authority.’
τοῦ πατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων καὶ σκορπίων. Compare Mark 16:17-18. So far as the promise was literal, the only fact of the kind referred to in the N.T. is Acts 28:3-5. In legend we have the story of St John saved from the poison, which is represented in Christian art as a viper escaping from the cup (Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, I. 159). But it may be doubted whether the meaning was not predominantly spiritual, as in Genesis 3:15; Romans 16:20; Psalms 91:13; Isaiah 11:8. For the metaphorical application of ‘serpents’ and ‘scorpions’ see Luke 3:7; Revelation 9:5.
οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσει. Romans 8:28; Romans 8:39.
Verse 20
20. μὴ χαίρετε … χαίρετε δὲ ὅτι. Here, as often, the ‘not’ followed by ‘but’ means ‘not so much … as that.’ “Nolite tam propterea laetari … quam potius.” This idiom, which is very important to observe in the interpretation of Scripture, is found in Acts 5:4 (not so much to man, as to God), 1 Corinthians 15:10 (not I alone, but the grace of God with me), &c. See Winer, p. 621.
ἐνγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ‘Have been recorded in the heavens’. On this ‘Book of God,’ or ‘Book of Life,’ see Exodus 32:32; Psalms 69:28; Daniel 12:1; Philippians 4:3; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 21:27. Such a record is the opposite to being “written in the earth,” Jeremiah 17:13. The reading ἐγράφη would point to the single fact of their names being inscribed; ἐγγέγραπται, to their standing permanently recorded. Comp. Esther 10:2.
Verse 21
21. ἠγαλλιάσατο. ‘Exulted,’ a much stronger word than the ‘rejoiced’ of the A.V[224]; and most valuable as recording one element—the element of exultant joy—in the life of our Lord, on which the Evangelists touch so rarely as to have originated the legend, preserved in the spurious letter of P. Lentulus to the Senate, that He wept often, but that no one had ever seen Him smile. The word ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι (John 11:33) expresses the opposite extreme of emotion.
ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι πάτερ. Literally, “I make grateful acknowledgment to Thee.” For the verb see Romans 14:11. It has this sense often in the LXX[225] It also means ‘to confess,’ Matthew 3:6, &c.
ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν … νηπίοις. Here we have the contrast between the ‘wisdom of the world,’ which is ‘foolishness with God,’ and the ‘foolishness of the world,’ which is ‘wisdom with God,’ on which St Paul also was fond of dwelling, 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Romans 1:22. For similar passages in the Gospels see Matthew 16:17; Matthew 18:3-4.
νηπίοις, i.e. to all who have “the young lamb’s heart amid the full-grown flocks”—to all innocent childlike souls, such as are often those of the truly wise. Genius itself has been defined as “the heart of childhood taken up and matured into the power of manhood.” God, says Gess, met the pride of intellect by blindness, and rewarded truth-loving simplicity by revelation.
ναὶ ὁ πατήρ. The nom. is here used in a vocative sense, as in Luke 8:54, ἡ παῖς ἔγειρε; Matthew 27:29, χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. This is especially the case with the imperative, as in Luke 12:32, μὴ φοβοῦ τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον. The meaning is not however exactly the same as in the πάτερ at the beginning of the verse, but ‘Thou who art my Father.’
εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν σου. A Hebraism. Exodus 28:38.
Verse 22
22. πάντα μοι … παρεδόθη ὑπό. ‘Were delivered to me by,’ cf. Luke 20:14. This entire verse is one of those in which the teaching of the Synoptists (Matthew 28:18) comes into nearest resemblance to that of St John, which abounds in such passages (John 1:18; John 3:35; John 5:26-27; John 6:44; John 6:46; John 14:6-9; John 17:1-2; 1 John 5:20). In the same way we find this view assumed in St Paul’s earlier Epistles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:27), and magnificently developed in the Epistles of the Captivity (Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:21-22).
γινώσκει. Lit. ‘recogniseth.’ The various reading adopted by Marcion—ἔγνω—is as ancient as Justin Martyr, the Clementines, &c.
τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς … τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ. The periphrasis seems to express the same as the ἐπιγινώσκει, ‘fully knows,’ of St Matt., and both may be (as Godet suggests) modes of representing the Aramaic idiom ידע על .
Verse 23
23. μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί. Comp. Matthew 13:16.
Verse 24
24. προφῆται καὶ βασιλεῖς. E.g. Abraham, Genesis 20:7; Genesis 23:6; Jacob, Genesis 49:18; Balaam, Numbers 24:17; David, 2 Samuel 23:1-5.
καὶ οὐκ εἶδαν. John 8:56; Ephesians 3:5-6; Hebrews 11:13.
“Save that each little voice in turn
Some glorious truth proclaims
What sages would have died to learn,
Now taught by cottage dames.”
KEBLE.
Verse 25
25. νομικός τις. A teacher of the Mosaic Law—differing little from a scribe, as the man is called in Mark 12:28. The same person may have had both functions—that of preserving and that of expounding the Law.
ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν. Literally, “putting Him fully to the test” (Luke 4:12); but the purpose does not seem to have been so deliberately hostile as in Luke 11:54.
τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; See Luke 18:18, and the answer there also given. It is interesting to compare it with the answer given by St Paul after the Ascension, Acts 16:30-31. Had the ‘lawyer’ known what ‘eternal life’ is (John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 17:37, &c.) he would have framed his question very differently.
Verses 25-37
25–37. THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN
Verse 26
26. πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις; The phrase resembled one in constant use among the Rabbis (מאי קראת ) and therefore involves a grave rebuke. The lawyer deserved to get no other answer because his question was not sincere. The very meaning and mission of his life was to teach this answer.
Verse 27
27. ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. This was the summary of the Law in Deuteronomy 6:5; Deuteronomy 10:12; Leviticus 19:18.
ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου. Only three substantives are used in the Hebrew and the LXX[226], but the latter translate לב, ‘heart,’ by διανοία, ‘understanding.’ St Mark also has the four substantives, but uses σύνεσις for διανοία. St Matthew has three (Luke 22:37). Godet.
καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. Hillel had given this part of the answer to an inquirer who similarly came to put him to the test, and as far as it went, it was a right answer (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:13-14; James 2:8); but it became futile if left to stand alone, without the first Commandment.
Verse 28
28. ὀρθῶς ἀπεκρίθης. Comp. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” Genesis 4:7; “which if a man do, he shall live in them,” Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5; but see Galatians 3:21-22.
τοῦτο ποίει. As the passage from Deuteronomy was one of those inscribed in the phylacteries (little leather boxes containing four texts in their compartments), which the scribe wore on his forehead and wrist, it is an ingenious conjecture that our Lord, as He spoke, pointed to one of these.
Verse 29
29. θέλων δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτόν. Desiring to justify himself “before men”—a thing which the Pharisees were ever prone to do, Luke 16:15. He felt that Christ’s answer involved a censure and therefore wished to justify his question.
τίς ἐστίν μου πλησίον; No doubt the meaning is who is my neighbour? but as πλησίον is an adv. the omission of the article is unusual and not easily explained. He wants his moral duties to be labelled and defined with the Talmudic precision to which ceremonial duties had been reduced.
Verse 30
30. ἄνθρωπός τις. Clearly, as the tenor of the Parable implies, a Jew.
κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἱερειχώ. A rocky, dangerous gorge (Jos. B. J. IV. 8, § 3), haunted by marauding Bedawin, and known as ‘the bloody way’ (Adommim, Jerome, De loc. Hebr. and on Jeremiah 3:2). Some explain this name by the dark red colour of the overhanging rocks. The “went down” is strictly accurate, for the road descends very rapidly from Jerusalem to the Jordan valley. The distance is about 21 miles. For Jericho, see Luke 19:1.
λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν. ‘Fell among robbers, or brigands.’ The phrase is a classical one, Hdt. VI. 105, &c. Palestine was notorious for these plundering Arabs. Herod the Great had rendered real service to the country in extirpating them from their haunts, but they constantly sprung up again, and even the Romans could not effectually put them down (Jos. Antt. XX. 6, § 1; B. J. XI. 12, § 5). On this very road an English baronet—Sir Frederic Henniker—was stripped and murdered by Arab robbers in 1820. “He was probably thinking of the Parable of the Samaritan when the assassin’s stroke laid him low,” Porter’s Palestine, I. 151.
πληγὰς ἐπιθέντες. ‘Laying blows on him.’
ἡμιθανῆ. Some MSS. omit the τυγχάνοντα, ‘chancing to be still alive.’ So far as the robbers were concerned, it was a mere accident that any life was left in him. The τυγχάνοντα with one graphic touch expresses the absolute indifference of these bandits to so small a matter as his living or dying.
Verse 31
31. κατὰ συγκυρίαν. ‘By coincidence.’ i.e. at the same time. The word ‘chance’ (τύχη) does not occur in Scripture. The nearest approach to it is the participle τυχὸν in 1 Corinthians 15:37 (if τυγχάνοντα be omitted in Luke 10:30). ‘Chance,’ to the sacred writers, as to the most thoughtful of the Greeks, is ‘the daughter of Forethought:’ it is “God’s unseen Providence, by men nicknamed Chance” (Fuller). “Many good opportunities work under things which seem fortuitous.” Bengel. The rare word συγκυρία is, like others used by St Luke, found chiefly in the writings of Hippocrates.
ἱερεύς τις. His official duties at Jerusalem were over, and he was on his way back to his home in the priestly city of Jericho. Perhaps the uselessness of his external service is implied. In superstitious attention to the letter, he was wholly blind to the spirit, Deuteronomy 22:1-4. See 1 John 3:17. He was selfishly afraid of risk, trouble, and ceremonial defilement, and, since no one was there to know of his conduct, he was thus led to neglect the traditional kindness of Jews towards their own countrymen (Tac. Hist. Luke 10:5; Juv. XIV. 103, 104), as well as the positive rules of the Law (Deuteronomy 22:4) and the Prophets (Isaiah 58:7).
ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ. ‘On that road.’ It is emphatically mentioned, because there was another road to Jericho which was safer, and therefore more frequently used.
Verse 32
32. ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδών. This vivid touch shews us the cold curiosity of the Levite, which was even baser than the dainty neglect of the priest. Perhaps the priest had been aware that a Levite was behind him, and left the trouble to him: and perhaps the Levite said to himself that he need not do what the priest had not thought fit to do. By choosing Galatians 3:16-23 as the Epistle to be read with this Gospel (13th Sunday after Trinity) the Church indicates her view that this Parable implies the failure of the Jewish Priesthood and Law to pity or remove the misery and sin of man.
Verse 33
33. Σαμαρίτης τις. A Samaritan is thus selected for high eulogy—though the Samaritans had so ignominiously rejected Jesus (Luke 9:53).
ὁδεύων. He was not ‘coming down’ as the Priest and Levite were from the Holy City and the Temple, but from the unauthorised worship of alien Gerizim.
ἐσπλαγχνίσθη. The aorist implies that his pity was instantaneous. There was no looking on and weighing considerations, as in the case of the calculating Levite. He thereby shewed himself, in spite of his heresy and ignorance, a better man than the orthodox priest and Levite; and all the more so because he was an ‘alien’ (see on Luke 17:18), and “the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9), and this very wounded man would, under other circumstances, have shrunk from the touch of the Samaritan as from pollution. Yet this ‘Cuthaean’—this ‘worshipper of the pigeon’—this man of a race which was accused of misleading the Jews by false fire-signals, and of defiling the Temple with human bones—whose testimony would not have been admitted in a Jewish court of law—with whom no Jew would so much as eat (Jos. Antt. XX. 6, § 1, XVIII. 2, § 2; B. J. II. 12, § 3)—shews a spontaneous and perfect pity of which neither Priest nor Levite had been remotely capable. The fact that the Jews had applied to our Lord Himself the opprobrious name of “Samaritan” (John 8:48) is one of the indications that a deeper meaning lies under the beautiful obvious significance of the Parable. One main difference between the Samaritan and the ecclesiastics who had gone before him was that his thoughts were of mercy and theirs of sacrifice (Matthew 9:13).
Verse 34
34. ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον. The ordinary remedies of the day. Isaiah 1:6; Mark 6:13; James 5:14. See Excursus VII. The present participle with the aorist verb implies that he kept pouring the oil and wine on (not in. A.V[227]) the wounds while he bound them up. See Plin. H. N. XXIX. 9; xxxi. 7.
ἐπιβιβάσας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τό ἴδιον κτῆνος. The word implies the labour of ‘lifting him up,’ and then the good Samaritan walked by his side. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον. The Attic form of the word is πανδοκεῖον. See on Luke 2:7. There the word is κατάλυμα, a mere khan or caravanserai. Perhaps this inn was at Bahurim. In this and the next verse a word or two suffices to shew the Samaritan’s sympathy, helpfulness, self-denial, generosity, and perseverance in kindliness.
Verse 35
35. ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον. Towards the morning. The Samaritan would, like all oriental travellers, start with the actual dawn. Comp. ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ, Mark 15:1; ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς, Acts 3:1.
ἐκβαλών. Literally, “throwing out” of his girdle.
δύο δηνάρια. i.e. two denarii; enough to pay for the man for some days. The Parable lends itself to the broader meaning, which sees the state of mankind wounded by evil passions and spiritual enemies; left unhelped by systems of sacrifice and ceremonial (Galatians 3:21); pitied and redeemed by Christ (Isaiah 61:1), and left to be provided for until His return by spiritual ministrations in the Church. But to see in the “two pence” any specific allusion to the Old and New Testaments, or to ‘the two sacraments,’ or to see in ‘the beast of burden’ Christ’s body, and in the ‘landlord’ the Bishop, is to push to extravagance the elaboration of details.
τῷ πανδοχεῖ. The word occurs here only in the N.T., and the fact that in the Talmud the Greek word for ‘an inn with a host’ is adopted, seems to shew that the institution had come in with Greek customs. In earlier and simpler days the open hospitality of the East excluded the necessity for anything but ordinary khans.
ἐγώ. The expression of the ἐγώ and its emphatic position shew that it is meant to imply ‘come exclusively to me for payment. Do not trouble this poor wounded traveller who has lost his all.’ There is therefore in the word a deep theological significance. Our wounded Humanity can offer nothing of its own to God.
Verse 36
36. πλησίον … γεγονέναι. ‘To have proved himself a neighbour.’
Verse 37
37. τὸ ἔλεος. ‘The pity.’ By this poor periphrasis the lawyer avoids the shock to his own prejudices, which would have been involved in the hated word, ‘the Samaritan.’ “He will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite.” Luther.
μετ' αὐτοῦ. An unclassical use of μετά. The recipient of the act is here (inaccurately) regarded as a partner in it. The use of μετὰ is extended in later and modern Greek. Winer, p. 471.
πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως. The general lesson is that of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:44. The Scribe had looked for a scholastic, theologically accurate definition of the word “neighbour,” such as a Pharisaic Rabbi would have furnished to his pupils. Our Lord never gave scholastic or theological answers, but shews him how he could make anyone his neighbour.
Verse 38
38. εἰς κώμην τινά. Undoubtedly Bethany, John 11:1. Both this and the expression “a certain woman” are obvious traces of a tendency to reticence about the family of Bethany which we find in the Synoptists (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3). It was doubtless due to the danger which the family incurred from their residing in the close vicinity of Jerusalem, and therefore of “the Jews,” as St John always calls the Pharisees, Priests, and ruling classes who opposed our Lord. By the time that St John wrote, after the destruction of Jerusalem, all need for such reticence was over. It is mere matter of conjecture whether ‘Simon the leper’ was the father of the family, or whether Martha was his widow; nor can Lazarus be identified with the gentle and holy Rabbi Eliezer of the Talmud. This narrative clearly belongs to a period just before the winter Feast of Dedication, because Bethany is close to Jerusalem. Its introduction at this point by St Luke (who alone preserves it, see Introd. p. 27) is due to subjective grouping, and probably to the question “what shall I do?” Luke 10:25.
Verses 38-42
38–42. THE SISTERS OF BETHANY
Verse 39
39. ἣ καὶ παρακαθεσθεῖσα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας τοῦ κυρίου. The “also” shews that Mary too, in her way, was no less anxious to give Jesus a fitting reception. Here, in one or two lines, we have a most clear sketch of the contrasted character of the two sisters, far too subtly and indirectly accordant with what we learn of them in St John to be due to anything but the harmony of truth. This is one of the incidents in which the Evangelist shews such consummate psychologic skill and insight that he is enabled by a few touches to set before us the most distinct types of character.
ἤκουεν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ. ‘Was listening to His discourse.’
Verse 40
40. περιεσπᾶτο περὶ πολλὴν διακονίαν. The word for “cumbered” literally means ‘was being dragged in different directions,’ i.e. was distracted (1 Corinthians 7:35). She was anxious to give her Lord a most hospitable reception, and was vexed at the contemplative humility which she regarded as slothfulness. The occurrence of ἀπερισπάστως, μεριμνᾷ, εὐπρόσεδρον in 1 Corinthians 7:34-35 seems to shew that St Paul had orally heard this narrative.
ἐπιστᾶσα. ‘But suddenly coming up’ (Luke 20:1; Acts 23:27). We see in this inimitable touch the little petulant outburst of jealousy in the loving, busy matron, as she hurried in with the words, “Why is Mary sitting there doing nothing?”
με κατέλιπεν. The word means ‘left me alone in the middle of my work’ to come and listen to you.
εἰπὸν οὖν αὐτῇ ἵνα μοι συναντιλάβηται. We almost seem to hear the undertone of ‘It is no use for me to tell her.’ Doubtless, had she been less ‘fretted’ (θορυβάζῃ), she would have felt that to leave her alone and withdraw into the background while this eager hospitality was going on was the kindest and most unselfish thing which Mary could do.
Verse 41
41. ΄άρθα ΄άρθα. The repeated name adds traditional tenderness to the rebuke, as in Luke 22:31; Acts 9:4.
μεριμνᾷς καὶ θορυβάζῃ περὶ πολλά. “I would have you without carefulness,” 1 Corinthians 7:32; Matthew 6:25. The words literally mean, ‘Thou art anxious and bustling.’ Her inward solicitude was shewing itself in outward hastiness.
Verse 42
42. ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία. The context should sufficiently have excluded the very bald, commonplace, and unspiritual meaning which has been attached to this verse,—that only one dish was requisite, or that only one person was wanted to work in the kitchen. Clearly the lesson conveyed is the same as in Matthew 6:33; Matthew 16:26, even if our Lord’s first reference was the lower one. The various readings ‘but there is need of few things,’ or ‘of few things or of one’ (א B various versions, &c.) seem to have risen from the notion that even for the simplest meal more than one dish would be required. This, however, is not the case in the simple meals of the East.
΄αρία γάρ. The γὰρ implies ‘Nor can I rebuke her; for she, &c.’
μερίδα. ‘Portion’ (as of a banquet, Genesis 43:34, LXX[228]; John 6:27) or ‘inheritance,’ Psalms 73:26. ἥτις=quippe quae. The nature of the portion is such that, &c.
ἥτις οὐκ ἀφαιρεθήσεται αὐτῆς. To speak of such theological questions as ‘indefectible grace’ here, is to use the narrative otherwise than was intended. The general meaning is that of Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5. It has been usual with Roman Catholic and other writers to see in Martha the type of the active, and in Mary of the contemplative disposition, and to exalt one above the other. This is not the point of the narrative, for both dispositions may and ought to be combined as in St Paul and in St John. The gentle reproof to Martha is aimed not at her hospitable activity, but at the ‘fret and fuss,’ the absence of repose and calm, by which it was accompanied; and above all, at the tendency to reprobate and interfere with excellence of a different kind.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- personal financial management marine net pdf
- company net worth lookup
- comenity net dental first financing
- marine net financial management pdf
- amazon net sales 2017
- average net profit small business
- amazon net profit 2018
- marine net personal finance answers
- hong kong net scheme
- https www municipalonlinepayments
- business net worth lookup
- free net worth search